Solution: Job Seekers Benefits

[HFE Signs]

Solution to reduce expenditure on unemployment benefits

The rules state “While you receive JSA, you’ll need to take reasonable steps to look for work as agreed with your work coach.”

This generally means the process is: To be seen to be actively seeking work and applying for jobs, an interview verifies this. That is it!

As business owners, we advertise a position and get inundated with applications, we shortlist and invite a select few for interviews, we then get this:

1. No further correspondence
2. Agree to attend but don’t show up, wasting hours of time.
3. Turn up with bad attitude and no intention of wanting to work.
4. Occasional genuine person who wants to work.

I am not alone; this is a big flaw in the job seekers system and business owners are being used to facilitate people to continue to claim JS with no intention to work. This is costing the taxpayer and costing businesses time.

The solution: There needs to be feedback from the employer to qualify the JS to be eligible for payment with the following criteria:

1. Did they show up for interview
2. Did they arrive on time
3. Did they present respectfully
4. Did they appear keen to work
5. Were they offered the job, if not reasons why

Thoughts?? I'm sending this to our local MP

 

[Newchodge]

Solution to reduce expenditure on unemployment benefits

The rules state “While you receive JSA, you’ll need to take reasonable steps to look for work as agreed with your work coach.”

This generally means the process is: To be seen to be actively seeking work and applying for jobs, an interview verifies this. That is it!

As business owners, we advertise a position and get inundated with applications, we shortlist and invite a select few for interviews, we then get this:

1. No further correspondence
2. Agree to attend but don’t show up, wasting hours of time.
3. Turn up with bad attitude and no intention of wanting to work.
4. Occasional genuine person who wants to work.

I am not alone; this is a big flaw in the job seekers system and business owners are being used to facilitate people to continue to claim JS with no intention to work. This is costing the taxpayer and costing businesses time.

The solution: There needs to be feedback from the employer to qualify the JS to be eligible for payment with the following criteria:

1. Did they show up for interview
2. Did they arrive on time
3. Did they present respectfully
4. Did they appear keen to work
5. Were they offered the job, if not reasons why

Thoughts?? I'm sending this to our local MP

It would be far simpler if Job Centres did not force claimants to apply for a certain number of jobs, completely regardless of suitability. When I was last unemployed their role was to help claimants find suitable work and to help by supplying funded training to achieve employment. Now their role is to shout at claimants and try to find ways to stop their benefits, resulting in a number of avoidable deaths.

 

[HFE Signs]

It would be far simpler if Job Centres did not force claimants to apply for a certain number of jobs, completely regardless of suitability. When I was last unemployed their role was to help claimants find suitable work and to help by supplying funded training to achieve employment. Now their role is to shout at claimants and try to find ways to stop their benefits, resulting in a number of avoidable deaths.

Interesting point, then we would only get applicants who are genuine, but would we get as many people back into work?

 

[Newchodge]

Interesting point, then we would only get applicants who are genuine, but would we get as many people back into work?

You should get more. If people are helped to apply for a job they are interested in they are more likely to be interviewed and appointed. If employers just see the standard job seeker compulsory application they won't pay it as much attention as it might warrant, for the reasons you gave above.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Solution to reduce expenditure on unemployment benefits

The rules state “While you receive JSA, you’ll need to take reasonable steps to look for work as agreed with your work coach.”

This generally means the process is: To be seen to be actively seeking work and applying for jobs, an interview verifies this. That is it!

As business owners, we advertise a position and get inundated with applications, we shortlist and invite a select few for interviews, we then get this:

1. No further correspondence
2. Agree to attend but don’t show up, wasting hours of time.
3. Turn up with bad attitude and no intention of wanting to work.
4. Occasional genuine person who wants to work.

I am not alone; this is a big flaw in the job seekers system and business owners are being used to facilitate people to continue to claim JS with no intention to work. This is costing the taxpayer and costing businesses time.

The solution: There needs to be feedback from the employer to qualify the JS to be eligible for payment with the following criteria:

1. Did they show up for interview
2. Did they arrive on time
3. Did they present respectfully
4. Did they appear keen to work
5. Were they offered the job, if not reasons why

Thoughts?? I'm sending this to our local MP

Similarly, way back when we used to use Job Centres to recruit - and got some quality staff.

When it went online it became very obvious that seekers were just ticking boxes - as a finance brokerage seeking telesales trainees I got applications talking about 'passion for retail' or whatever.

In reality, there is no simple or obvious solution - these rules are aimed at the lowest common denominator - ie those who don't want to work - Whatever you put in place they will find work-arounds. Those actively seeking work have to comply, which is mostly a waste of time.

 

[IanSuth]

I have spoken to many many many applicants over the years who have been forced to apply for roles the could not or did not want to do because the JC said they had to.

It is inefficient and wastes everyone's time

To prove a point - if you apply to 10 jobs with a tailored response/cv/application do you think you are more or less likely to get a job than applying to 1000 with a standard saved CV ?

My experience says the tailored approach all day long as your application will stand out, you will get an interview and then you can put your best foot forward, in the second approach you will often end up in the "maybe" pile for jobs you would have got an interview for with a tailored application. If the company see a better application you won't even get an interview.

The JobCentre are 100% firmly in the more is better, throw enough mud some will stick category - also if you advertise with the job centre, last time i spoke to them, you have to agree to interview anyone they recommend to you

 

[thetiger2015]

My experience says the tailored approach all day long as your application will stand out, you will get an interview and then you can put your best foot forward, in the second approach you will often end up in the "maybe" pile for jobs you would have got an interview for with a tailored application. If the company see a better application you won't even get an interview.

Which is why the JC should be helping people to build CVs that match their qualifications or experience. Those light on experience should be offered fully funded courses - if they don't attend the course, they'll never be able to apply for a job anyway. Those will be at the very bottom, a tiny percentage to deal with.

They should allow people to complete basic courses before needing to apply for jobs, it would cut down the amount of applications businesses receive and raise the quality of candidate when they're ready to apply.

They're lumping everyone in the same boat when it's not that simple. Some people are suddenly out of work, through no fault of their own and they're struggling. The JC should be a resource and support hub, not a place to mock people who have lost their jobs or are at an age where they're not old enough to retire but too old to learn about bitcoin and tiktok.

 

[IanSuth]

Which is why the JC should be helping people to build CVs that match their qualifications or experience. Those light on experience should be offered fully funded courses - if they don't attend the course, they'll never be able to apply for a job anyway. Those will be at the very bottom, a tiny percentage to deal with.

They should allow people to complete basic courses before needing to apply for jobs, it would cut down the amount of applications businesses receive and raise the quality of candidate when they're ready to apply.

They're lumping everyone in the same boat when it's not that simple. Some people are suddenly out of work, through no fault of their own and they're struggling. The JC should be a resource and support hub, not a place to mock people who have lost their jobs or are at an age where they're not old enough to retire but too old to learn about bitcoin and tiktok.

I don't disagree with you

HOWEVER

Be aware a lot of "job finding" has been outsourced - it is full of companies like "Back2Work" who seem to exist to run adverts saying you can do customer service from home, then wait for jobseekers to apply, check if they are eligible for courses, if so get them on them (which they run), take the £ and leave the jobseeker still without a job.

There are many companies / subsidiaries of companies existing to make money from the ecosystem of being out of work in an era where the jobcentres are understaffed and the "solution to joblessness" has been put to the open market.

30 years in recruitment and recruitment assessment tells me there are no shortcuts to finding the right person for a job (and visa versa) and training them well.

 

[Newchodge]

I don't disagree with you

HOWEVER

Be aware a lot of "job finding" has been outsourced - it is full of companies like "Back2Work" who seem to exist to run adverts saying you can do customer service from home, then wait for jobseekers to apply, check if they are eligible for courses, if so get them on them (which they run), take the £ and leave the jobseeker still without a job.

There are many companies / subsidiaries of companies existing to make money from the ecosystem of being out of work in an era where the jobcentres are understaffed and the "solution to joblessness" has been put to the open market.

30 years in recruitment and recruitment assessment tells me there are no shortcuts to finding the right person for a job (and visa versa) and training them well.

Something else to blame on the last Government. A lot of experienced and valuable JC staff left when the job chnaged from supporting the unemployed to bullying them.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Which is why the JC should be helping people to build CVs that match their qualifications or experience.

I was out of work 30 years ago and was sent on a CV writing course through the Job Centre. Have they stopped?

Didn't stop them telling me I had to apply for a job cleaning the town centre toilets

I was looking forward to putting on my CV under the 'Is there anything you have a passion for that would help you in this job?

'Yes, taking the p'

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Well I give up (I dont normally)

Nobody wants to do F££K all

You can do what you like to the benefits system because I dont think they care they get peanuts from the government anyway so that is not keeping people from working

Question ?

How the hell do people do it . They dont want to work and if they do its part time
They appear to be able to live ,drive cars have have holidays yet do no or a limited amount of work

We have a nation of lacticles

 

[Newchodge]

I was out of work 30 years ago and was sent on a CV writing course through the Job Centre. Have they stopped?

As far as I am aware ALL support has stopped.

 

[IanSuth]

As far as I am aware ALL support has stopped.

All internal help has stopped, it is all provided by external providers now who know the rules to be able to claim .gov cash for running the courses

 

[Newchodge]

All internal help has stopped, it is all provided by external providers now who know the rules to be able to claim .gov cash for running the courses

What courses do they offer, though?

 

[IanSuth]

Well I give up (I dont normally)


Question ?

How the hell do people do it . They dont want to work and if they do its part time
They appear to be able to live ,drive cars have have holidays yet do no or a limited amount of work

They want part time as once you go past certain amounts of hours and/or pay you hit a cliff edge. Suddenly a lot of benefits stop and that extra few hours a week can cost you thousands

Look up PIP/DWP carers overpayment scandal - thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of carers are being asked to repay because they were honest and said what they were earning optherwise but the DWP kept paying for years but then got told to "crack down on fraud" and went after the easy targets.

Earn £150 in a job and you could still have carers allowance (if eligible) of £81.90, earn £151 you get £0. Loads of carers had various weeks they went over the £150 but still got the carers allowance, not least as DWP didnt average it unless they felt like it and people might do an hours overtime or get a xmas bonus (or be paid monthly). At the extreme you can earn £150 per week for 52 weeks you would claim £4250 carers allowance in that year, tell DWP of a £100pa payrise that they ignored (which they did for many) and suddenly a few years down the line of earning £152 a week and they are after you to repay that £4250 for each year as any week over £151 you were not allowed any carers allowance.

they are far easier to catch than real fraudsters (like the Bulgarian lot caught a few weeks back) but allow you to get headlines about numbers of fraudsters caught and make people think there are thousands scamming the system.

In my experience far more £ is lost in sheer incompetence of the DWP staff than by fraud

 

[IanSuth]

What courses do they offer, though?

Basic maths and english to gcse grade 4 (there was a bunch in my last office building doing it - find a EU migrants here who didnt have a gcse for obvious reasons but were already good with english and maths, get them to "attend" once a week for 5 weeks then take some tests on last day - company got paid lots and they got a proficiency certificate )

Or all of these "fully funded pre-employment training courses"

Our Training Courses - Back2Work Complete Training

We offer a wide range of training courses throughout of England to help you gain qualifications and get back into work.

b2wcompletetraining.com

• Child Care
• Contact Centre
• Creative Industries
• Introduction to Construction
• Lean Management Techniques
• Introduction to Facilities Industry
• Essential Digital Skills
• Express Logistics
• Hospitality & Catering
• Stevedoring

 

[HFE Signs]

Some interesting points, thank you all for your input. I still feel a feedback system would save a lot of my time and discourage people that have no intention to turn up

 

[Newchodge]

Some interesting points, thank you all for your input. I still feel a feedback system would save a lot of my time and discourage people that have no intention to turn up

Such a system would probably result in people losing their benefits. As that becomes known, people will turn up, dressed properly, listening to the questions and giving answers that make them clearly unsuitable. Probably a bigger waste of your time.

 

[HFE Signs]

Such a system would probably result in people losing their benefits. As that becomes known, people will turn up, dressed properly, listening to the questions and giving answers that make them clearly unsuitable. Probably a bigger waste of your time.

But should they get benefits called 'Job Seekers' if they are not seeking a job? Maybe we need something called 'can't be arsed' benefit, that would save my time

 

[Newchodge]

But should they get benefits called 'Job Seekers' if they are not seeking a job? Maybe we need something called 'can't be arsed' benefit, that would save my time

Ask the government that changed the name. It used to be called income support.

 

[Gecko001]

There seems to a a culture that says that if you apply for 100 jobs you are bound to get one of them. In fact the opposite is the case in my view. It is almost impossible to do a proper application for so many jobs. You will apply for jobs that do not suit you, jobs which you are not qualified for, or even jobs that you are over-qualifed for or just jobs you know nothing about and come across as disinterested at interview. A recipe for failure in most applications, but in every application.

If you have this scatter gun approach to finding employment, you will get people turning up for a few interviews, getting refused again and again, then losing interest, and giving up. Less is more as the old saying goes.

 

[Newchodge]

There seems to a a culture that says that if you apply for 100 jobs you are bound to get one of them. In fact the opposite is the case in my view. It is almost impossible to do a proper application for so many jobs. You will apply for jobs that do not suit you, jobs which you are not qualified for, or even jobs that you are over-qualifed for or just jobs you know nothing about and come across as disinterested at interview. A recipe for failure in most applications, but in every application.

If you have this scatter gun approach to finding employment, you will get people turning up for a few interviews, getting refused again and again, then losing interest, and giving up. Less is more as the old saying goes.

I agree 100%. However, that is what the government requires.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Earn £150 in a job and you could still have carers allowance (if eligible) of £81.90, earn £151 you get £0.

Then nothing has changed in over 30 years.

The simple temptations in life such as popping into a COSTA for a Latte are not doable when strapped for cash. Going for a beer, having a takeaway, watching a band, a show, doing any number of things, possessing the latest tech, latest fashion item, following the latest fad. Basically anything and everything that we are encouraged to do by advertising, social pressures, cannot be done on basic allowances. The only way to 'live' not just survive is by playing the system, entering the black market............or getting a job that pays a decent enough wage, of which there are very few.

 

[IanSuth]

Then nothing has changed in over 30 years.

The simple temptations in life such as popping into a COSTA for a Latte are not doable when strapped for cash. Going for a beer, having a takeaway, watching a band, a show, doing any number of things, possessing the latest tech, latest fashion item, following the latest fad. Basically anything and everything that we are encouraged to do by advertising, social pressures, cannot be done on basic allowances. The only way to 'live' not just survive is by playing the system, entering the black market............or getting a job that pays a decent enough wage, of which there are very few.

Or being one of the lucky ones who

a: Got a council house long enough ago and haven't moved so are comfortable enough in that premises at that rent and have a bit spare

b: Got a house before prices went silly. There are MANY 50-55 year olds who bought a place before prices went silly, didnt move and have paid it off. Compared with their younger comparators they have much less monthly outgoings and so on a given amount of benefits £ have more disposable. (Remember definitely in the south most of those on housing benefit do not get enough to fully cover their rent and have to top up from their other benefits - same when on UC, the housing component is not enough to cover housing)

 

[Craiglincs]

I have spoken to many many many applicants over the years who have been forced to apply for roles the could not or did not want to do because the JC said they had to.

It is inefficient and wastes everyone's time

To prove a point - if you apply to 10 jobs with a tailored response/cv/application do you think you are more or less likely to get a job than applying to 1000 with a standard saved CV ?

My experience says the tailored approach all day long as your application will stand out, you will get an interview and then you can put your best foot forward, in the second approach you will often end up in the "maybe" pile for jobs you would have got an interview for with a tailored application. If the company see a better application you won't even get an interview.

The JobCentre are 100% firmly in the more is better, throw enough mud some will stick category - also if you advertise with the job centre, last time i spoke to them, you have to agree to interview anyone they recommend to you

Unless it's a small company I don't think the employer has time to look at custom CVs. Local small shop in small town got over 100 CVs and they only advertised on one Facebook group.

 

[IanSuth]

Unless it's a small company I don't think the employer has time to look at custom CVs. Local small shop in small town got over 100 CVs and they only advertised on one Facebook group.

No idea what you mean by that ?

I did recruitment for 27 years, I used to most days open my inbox and read 100 CV's before my second cup of tea (that is truth not hyperbole)

Whether they admit to it or not everyone (and every ATS) categorises applications into Yes/No/Maybe, if there are enough Yes from the first sift then the maybe's never get looked at. If you use a generic "average" cv for all your applications you increase the risk of being in the maybe rather than yes pile and thus decrease your chance of getting an interview.

CV's are just like an advert/webpage - they are a showcase to make a buyer (employer) show interest and want to know more.

 

[pentel]

Whether they admit to it or not everyone (and every ATS) categorises applications into Yes/No/Maybe, if there are enough Yes from the first sift then the maybe's never get looked at. If you use a generic "average" cv for all your applications you increase the risk of being in the maybe rather than yes pile and thus decrease your chance of getting an interview.

This is what happens in the real world, DWP needs to get onboard with this, not doing so is a disservice to the people they are supposed to be helping get back to work.

 

[NickGrogan]

This is what happens in the real world, DWP needs to get onboard with this, not doing so is a disservice to the people they are supposed to be helping get back to work.

What are DWP assessed on? Are the staff judged by the number of people that they get jobs? Looking at their actions I suspect not.

If they're assessed based on the number of people applying for X jobs per week then that is what they'll focus on. Regardless of the outcome.

I knew someone who claimed for a few months. All they wanted to see was that he'd applied for X jobs per week. Since there weren't X relevant jobs in the area, he made a spreadsheet that randomly listed how many jobs he'd applied for each day and where, and the total was always a small random amount over X.

The DWP staff loved it, as it gave them something to file away and showed it to other staff as an example to others. They never once asked about any of the jobs.

DWP are the least able to find anyone a job hence that's not what they're judged on.

 

[IanSuth]

What are DWP assessed on? Are the staff judged by the number of people that they get jobs? Looking at their actions I suspect not.

If they're assessed based on the number of people applying for X jobs per week then that is what they'll focus on. Regardless of the outcome.

I knew someone who claimed for a few months. All they wanted to see was that he'd applied for X jobs per week. Since there weren't X relevant jobs in the area, he made a spreadsheet that randomly listed how many jobs he'd applied for each day and where, and the total was always a small random amount over X.

The DWP staff loved it, as it gave them something to file away and showed it to other staff as an example to others. They never once asked about any of the jobs.

DWP are the least able to find anyone a job hence that's not what they're judged on.

Last time i asked the front line staff were individually just on applicants processed and the office as a whole were assessed on easily manipulated KPI's like number of long term (>6mths) unemployed got off the register (which could be done by enrolling them on a training scheme whether it was of use/suitable or not)

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Whether they admit to it or not everyone (and every ATS) categorises applications into Yes/No/Maybe,

Out of interest, would you have been swayed by the physicality of the CV?

I once applied for a job on a Newspaper, creating a spoof front page with a punchy headline leading into a story that outlined my experience and had it printed on the front of a T-shirt.

A guy I know applied for a job in desktop publishing in a bank and created a spoof cheque book, each page detailing a different job he'd had.

Could this work now?

 

[IanSuth]

Out of interest, would you have been swayed by the physicality of the CV?

I once applied for a job on a Newspaper, creating a spoof front page with a punchy headline leading into a story that outlined my experience and had it printed on the front of a T-shirt.

A guy I know applied for a job in desktop publishing in a bank and created a spoof cheque book, each page detailing a different job he'd had.

Could this work now?

the answer is

"it depends"

Maybe for something creative but for almost all large companies all applications are going in electronically to an ATS, worst case scenario it doesn't parse correctly and you shoot yourself in the foot - best case your fancy formatting is stripped out and ignored

How many actual physical creative roles are there still. Almost all contain a digital element which would need a portfolio site/list anyway so you might as well put photo's / case studies of physical creativity on that and hope the recruiter passes those details to a line manager who looks at it

 

[japancool]

created a spoof cheque book

What's a cheque book?

 

[IanSuth]

What are DWP assessed on? Are the staff judged by the number of people that they get jobs? Looking at their actions I suspect not.

The Job Outcome Target measures the number of Jobcentre Plus customers who move into work, whether through a referral by a Jobcentre Plus Adviser or one of the contracted providers or via self-service channels such as an electronic job point or the internet

That is the actual text from an official publication - in English they are assessed on people stopping claiming, whether through being put on a course with "a contracted provider" or because they found a job.

I know that if they go on a course but don't get a job at the end of it (they get paid jobseeker/UC benefits during the course) that it counts as a new claimant afterwards, hence me saying "easily manipulated kpi's", like a Dr/Hospital getting you in for another blood test/scan so you don't go on the "waited more than x weeks for treatment from diagnosis" stats

The other big target is on reducing NEET (not in education, emplyment or training) youngsters to a minimum

 

[Craiglincs]

The Job Outcome Target measures the number of Jobcentre Plus customers who move into work, whether through a referral by a Jobcentre Plus Adviser or one of the contracted providers or via self-service channels such as an electronic job point or the internet

That is the actual text from an official publication - in English they are assessed on people stopping claiming, whether through being put on a course with "a contracted provider" or because they found a job.

I know that if they go on a course but don't get a job at the end of it (they get paid jobseeker/UC benefits during the course) that it counts as a new claimant afterwards, hence me saying "easily manipulated kpi's", like a Dr/Hospital getting you in for another blood test/scan so you don't go on the "waited more than x weeks for treatment from diagnosis" stats

The other big target is on reducing NEET (not in education, emplyment or training) youngsters to a minimum

They want part time as once you go past certain amounts of hours and/or pay you hit a cliff edge. Suddenly a lot of benefits stop and that extra few hours a week can cost you thousands

Look up PIP/DWP carers overpayment scandal - thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of carers are being asked to repay because they were honest and said what they were earning optherwise but the DWP kept paying for years but then got told to "crack down on fraud" and went after the easy targets.

Earn £150 in a job and you could still have carers allowance (if eligible) of £81.90, earn £151 you get £0. Loads of carers had various weeks they went over the £150 but still got the carers allowance, not least as DWP didnt average it unless they felt like it and people might do an hours overtime or get a xmas bonus (or be paid monthly). At the extreme you can earn £150 per week for 52 weeks you would claim £4250 carers allowance in that year, tell DWP of a £100pa payrise that they ignored (which they did for many) and suddenly a few years down the line of earning £152 a week and they are after you to repay that £4250 for each year as any week over £151 you were not allowed any carers allowance.

they are far easier to catch than real fraudsters (like the Bulgarian lot caught a few weeks back) but allow you to get headlines about numbers of fraudsters caught and make people think there are thousands scamming the system.

In my experience far more £ is lost in sheer incompetence of the DWP staff than by fraud

It always used to be 15 hours a week to avoid going over but I think they changed it now.

Some interesting points, thank you all for your input. I still feel a feedback system would save a lot of my time and discourage people that have no intention to turn up

I think a lot of employers wouldn't give feedback, given how many hiring managers and recruiters ghost candidates if you had to give specific feedback it would take a lot more time. Then their are tve ones discriminating, they arenot going to admit that. But it would be useful to have specific criteria then they could be sent on relevant training.

But should they get benefits called 'Job Seekers' if they are not seeking a job? Maybe we need something called 'can't be arsed' benefit, that would save my time

It's actually called universal credit now

No idea what you mean by that ?

I did recruitment for 27 years, I used to most days open my inbox and read 100 CV's before my second cup of tea (that is truth not hyperbole)

Whether they admit to it or not everyone (and every ATS) categorises applications into Yes/No/Maybe, if there are enough Yes from the first sift then the maybe's never get looked at. If you use a generic "average" cv for all your applications you increase the risk of being in the maybe rather than yes pile and thus decrease your chance of getting an interview.

CV's are just like an advert/webpage - they are a showcase to make a buyer (employer) show interest and want to know more.

Assuming an a4 page and average reading speed, it takes 1.7 minutes to read it properly, that's 170 minutes or 2 hours 50 minutes before your 2nd cup of tea and that's on top of everything else you need to do and assuming you are opening instantly and that's only 100. Maybe you go longer between cups of tea than me or maybe you just weren't looking at them long enough which defeats the purpose. The average is 6 seconds which gives us a more reasonable 10 minutes but isn't long enough for you to properly read the cv and is how you get coffee batista being spammed by recruiters for java programming.

The lady who owned this shop is lovely but I don't think she knows what an ats is.Yeah,id say most people do use ats but the ats itself does the initial sort. There could well be applicants the hiring manager never saw. Would we have to ban this Practise? How can the manager give a reason for not hiring?

e Job Outcome Target measures the number of Jobcentre Plus customers who move into work, whether through a referral by a Jobcentre Plus Adviser or one of the contracted providers or via self-service channels such as an electronic job point or the internet

That is the actual text from an official publication - in English they are assessed on people stopping claiming, whether through being put on a course with "a contracted provider" or because they found a job.

I know that if they go on a course but don't get a job at the end of it (they get paid jobseeker/UC benefits during the course) that it counts as a new claimant afterwards, hence me saying "easily manipulated kpi's", like a Dr/Hospital getting you in for another blood test/scan so you don't go on the "waited more than x weeks for treatment from diagnosis" stats

The other big target is on reducing NEET (not in education, emplyment or training) youngsters to a minimum

I I thought they measured the number of claimants which led to the work coachs/system being encouraged to annoy people to the point they closed the claim and suddenly they don't show up in the unemployment figures.

 

[IanSuth]

It always used to be 15 hours a week to avoid going over but I think they changed it now.

I think a lot of employers wouldn't give feedback, given how many hiring managers and recruiters ghost candidates if you had to give specific feedback it would take a lot more time. Then their are tve ones discriminating, they arenot going to admit that. But it would be useful to have specific criteria then they could be sent on relevant training.

It's actually called universal credit now

Assuming an a4 page and average reading speed, it takes 1.7 minutes to read it properly, that's 170 minutes or 2 hours 50 minutes before your 2nd cup of tea and that's on top of everything else you need to do and assuming you are opening instantly and that's only 100. Maybe you go longer between cups of tea than me or maybe you just weren't looking at them long enough which defeats the purpose. The average is 6 seconds which gives us a more reasonable 10 minutes but isn't long enough for you to properly read the cv and is how you get coffee batista being spammed by recruiters for java programming.

The lady who owned this shop is lovely but I don't think she knows what an ats is.Yeah,id say most people do use ats but the ats itself does the initial sort. There could well be applicants the hiring manager never saw. Would we have to ban this Practise? How can the manager give a reason for not hiring?

Nobody reads a full cv line by line unless it is of interest. I think the research figure was 5s not 6 that you have for a human recruiter to decide if it is worth reading.

Open - look at address, is it close enough (that weeds out about a 1/3rd in under a second)

I did IT recruitment so next look was the skills/tech summary at top - did it contain the essential skills for the role - that weeded out another 1/3rd - no point reading an entire cv for a c# role if they just list a couple of scripting languages or a someone applying for a Linux Sys Admin job with just Windows versions listed.

What jobs have they done (takes a few seconds at most to see company names and job titles) - now start to read ones that jumped out by either who they had worked for or what roles they had done.

Likely 10 out of the 100 to actually read and some of them would be because something jumped out for another role i was working on - we didnt have an ATS or automation beyond the scoring that sites like CVLibrary automatically add to any application

 

[NickGrogan]

maybe you just weren't looking at them long enough which defeats the purpose.

How long should be spent looking at a CV you know is irrelevant?

If you were hiring, what would you do when the candidate is not in this country, you can't sponsor visas, and they have none of the skills you require?

 

[IanSuth]

How long should be spent looking at a CV you know is irrelevant?

If you were hiring, what would you do when the candidate is not in this country, you can't sponsor visas, and they have none of the skills you require?

Or (true story) you ran an advert for a Development team leader which required mentoring graduate software engineers and received an application from an addiction mentor.

I rang that guy to say "sorry i think you clicked the wrong advert" as I assumed it was a mistake and he looked an experienced guy (just in the wrong profession), I got an earful of abuse as the JC+ in his area (Southampton) was demanding they all apply to a minimum of 50 jobs a week or face sanction and you had to apply from the ones the computer system flagged as relevant, the system (which i happen to know is a whitelabelled version of the main Monster engine developed by TMP Worldwide) had spotted the word Mentor and suggested my job so he applied to continue getting his benefits whilst he tried to get an actual paid job in his field (alcohol addiction)

 

[fantheflames]

I reckon the job centre should be more about skill-matching rather than apply for any job. So identifying the skills early on and matching them with specific jobs. They might be signing on for longer in some cases, but this could save time and resources for everyone involved. Perhaps JC should be teamed up with top recruitment companies. Not sure if they do that or not, but I get the impression it's all about signing off as quickly as possible, regardless of the short term or long term outcomes.

 

[IanSuth]

I reckon the job centre should be more about skill-matching rather than apply for any job. So identifying the skills early on and matching them with specific jobs. They might be signing on for longer in some cases, but this could save time and resources for everyone involved. Perhaps JC should be teamed up with top recruitment companies. Not sure if they do that or not, but I get the impression it's all about signing off as quickly as possible, regardless of the short term or long term outcomes.

If you want that then you need people who can do that working in the JC+'s, that means either experienced recruiters (not high street low level grunts) or HR professionals. That means you are looking at salaries in the high £30k's minimum - a low level jobcentre employee is on just over min wage and a "work coach" is on £29k and there are 27k of them. Just to pay that role £10k more to get people who could do it right would cost £270m per year

If you teamed it up with "top recruitment companies" that would actually mean some form of deal with a company like Reed and would do nothing (they tried a partnership experiment with agencies in about 2006 and it was a disaster) agencies are paid by their clients, they are paid to find people who can hit the floor running most of the time. The easy placements from out of work people will happen anyway as it is in the agencies best interest to - therefore paying them to do something they would get paid for anyway is an inefficiency. Agencies are sh1t at finding different permanent work for people as companies are apt to say "if i wanted to take that risk i would do it directly myself" - temp to perm is possible but works really badly with UC so that would need reforming first.

 

[fantheflames]

If you want that then you need people who can do that working in the JC+'s, that means either experienced recruiters (not high street low level grunts) or HR professionals. That means you are looking at salaries in the high £30k's minimum - a low level jobcentre employee is on just over min wage and a "work coach" is on £29k and there are 27k of them. Just to pay that role £10k more to get people who could do it right would cost £270m per year

If you teamed it up with "top recruitment companies" that would actually mean some form of deal with a company like Reed and would do nothing (they tried a partnership experiment with agencies in about 2006 and it was a disaster) agencies are paid by their clients, they are paid to find people who can hit the floor running most of the time. The easy placements from out of work people will happen anyway as it is in the agencies best interest to - therefore paying them to do something they would get paid for anyway is an inefficiency. Agencies are sh1t at finding different permanent work for people as companies are apt to say "if i wanted to take that risk i would do it directly myself" - temp to perm is possible but works really badly with UC so that would need reforming first.

I didn't know about the partnership experiment. I'd be asking myself, what went well? What didn't work? Perhaps a new partnership could work, based on the successes and failures of the previous experiment? If the policy and direction was more about skill-building and ensuring people are in roles they want to be in, rather than targets of getting people in work quickly, that would change how JC is run. I agree that a reform at the JC is swiftly needed.