ujm access

[superg]

Hello I just need some advice please I am currently in receipt of jsa. I have now been given one of those job workbook things and on chatting to the advicer he said that i have noticed that you dont allow ujm acess.

 

He explained it was easier for me and them I explained that i was happy to show info print out every fortnight.

 

This is the bit now i am not sure about he said the he needs to se my cv so i said iwill print it out.

 

He said that if i dont give access I would have to log in to my account from the jobcentre to show him.

 

I was not sure if this was correct do i have to use dwp computers at all my feeling was he was lying can any one advice please

 

Thank you g

[SabreSheep]

I believe if he mandated you do that he would have to request this in writing

[superg]

Thanks for your reply I still cant work out how someone can make you log in to show them anything as access is denied for dwp doesnt make any sence to me

[Mcall]

I had the same issue with the Workbook, it's not mandatory but advisers don't seem to realize this and threaten all sorts. Personally I don't have a problem allowing DWP access to UJM - I've got nothing to hide, they have my personal information anyway, and it takes me less than two minutes each day to log on and write some placatory crap in the "Activity Box".

 

While technically it is not mandatory to allow your adviser access, why would you want to deliberately cheese them off, win the petty battle, then label yourself as a "problem" for which he/she will make it their vindictive mission to make trouble for you within their rules? Bigger wars to fight IMO

[essexmat]

You do not have to give access, that is YOUR right although if mandated you can log in and show them at JCP - mandated requests need to be in writing and not verbal or via email. If you do log in and show him/her ENSURE they do not have your password/log in details. As for the workbook, it is utter garbage, do your own activity sheet with organisation, contact details, how you contacted them, job title etc and IF requested show print outs of applications.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

You are quite right Superg to stick to your guns and refuse DWP or its advisors access to your UJ Account. Creating a Gateway Account is a legal requirement. Once created, logging on and using UJM is entirely voluntary.

 

The law, the DWP’s own UJM Toolkit, innumerable DWP FOI Responses reinforce your position.

This is not a question of whether or not one has anything to hide it’s a question of basic civil and personal human right. Once one accepts that any little s**t can have access to one’s personal information and have it distributed to all and sundry over a sight that one has no control over then one is leaving one’s self open to all sorts of abuses and repercussions.

 

UJM is designed to interpret and assess automatically the ‘placatory crap’ entered onto it by an account holder and then to automatically issue a sanction based on what it has concluded or assessed from said ‘placatory crap’.

 

You may rest assured Mcall, that sooner or later the ‘placatory crap’ and much more besides will get flung back at you. The only reason that they are not doing so already is because they are still busily coaxing and coercing claimants to sign up to and use UJM and do not want any adverse publicity from the effects that it’s full implementation would attract. You have forsaken you basic right to privacy of personal information with a view to appeasing those people and ingratiating yourself to them. Well the fact that you are now having issues with the Workbook must make it clear that your attempts at labelling yourself as an easy touch rather than a ‘problem’ were futile. After all, were we not given to believe that UJ was supposed to do away with the need to provide evidence in any other form.

 

As for your CV Superg. Your adviser is there supposedly to do what he/she can to get you back into work (snigger). To that end it could be argued that sight of your CV would help to inform him/her of the qualifications/experience you have and thereby assess the sort of work etc that they could help you to get. The point to remember is that you do not need to provide copies for them to keep. As with all personal information it is for you to decide who can see it or keep it.

 

Concessions were made to claimants who did not wish to use their home computers because of the risk of what they call ‘cookies’. These are small programmes that can be embedded onto personal computers ostensibly to help a programme to run smoothly but can also be used to ‘spy’ on every move you make on your computer. The more one reads of what those cookies can do the scarier it gets. Every key you press and every personal detail you store can be passed via cookies to some central facility and you have no idea what they have taken or what they might use it for. To overcome the claimant’s right to refuse on those grounds the idea of Jobcentre IADs was introduced, a claimant could use them instead.

 

That does not alter the fact that by law you are not required to log on to UJ at all, especially on one of JCP’s machines that may quite easily have been set up to record any personal information without you realising it. Having an advisor stood over you while using it does not add to the feeling of security and privacy. You don’t have to use it and you tell them that you don’t intend to use it. Why then should they want you to log in at their offices? If you don’t use it there’s nothing to see. You can’t be mandated to provide access to, or to log on to, UJM. For that reason they would not do it, they know that they can’t. Any letter you get mandating you to have anything to do with UJM would be dynamite.

 

If you trawl through this site, and others, you will find that many claimants have stuck to their guns, taken on the system and won. Unfortunately it makes it harder because many more opt for what they perceive to be an easier option.

 

In a written question in the House of Commons last January it was stated that on average 4 people a week die as a result of this government’s welfare policies. Why is this allowed to go on? I would hate for future generations to conclude that it was allowed to go on because those who could have done something about it decided it was petty to do so and the fear of ‘cheesing off’ the DWP and being considered a ‘problem’ was too high a price to pay. I don’t want to be included in that number, if I’m to go down, I’ll go down fighting.

 

If we all stood up for our rights and insisted on preserving them then the whole of the government’s intrusive initiatives would have failed and have been abandoned long ago. It’s not too late, consent to give access to UJM can be withdrawn at any time, likewise the Work Plan Booklet.

[Mcall]

Please can someone explain to me why it's such a big deal to allow DWP access to what we write on a DWP website? I honestly don't get it. What am I missing here?

Gawd knows we all have to jump through so many (increasingly) ridiculous hoops to get our paltry JSA crusts each week - why make it even more difficult in the long run?

 

We need to stand up to our rights being eroded and being made to feel like **** for claiming what we paid tax for now we're out of work. But honestly - whether DWP have access to the evidence I'm mandated to show them online or via a screen print that costs me £0.10p to print out, screams to me of being petty and bloody-minded, almost being more "jobsworth" than the advisers we face.

 

Reading some of the posts on here about genuine maladministration, I don't understand why this recurring issue of allowing access to UJM is such a problem.

 

Personally speaking, I feel like such a small man having to sign on each week, it embarrasses me and crushes what little self respect I have left. So I guess if not allowing DWP to view what I write on their site is some sort of impotent protest, then fair enough.

 

Can anyone explain please?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Mcall

[SabreSheep]

People get sanctioned for using UJM. Yet it often goes wrong. EG my UJM account shows on the JC screen that I have not accessed it for months. Yet I luckily had a screen print from that morning.

 

Also the way it is used. If you select vacancies to view then use the dorp down menu it asks you "why you have not applied for this job" Use this too much and a benefit doubt is raised automatically. And as you know when a sanction is applied, the money is withdrawn untill AFTER a successful appeal. Fro a lot of people this can cause servere hardship and in cases suicide.

 

When you can produce evidence without the need for badly designed and implemented spying who is being bloody minded in trying to force claimants to use a system that blatantly does not work?

[Mcall]

I apply for every job that comes up when I do a UJM search (however far away or not matching my skills, just to keep them happy) safe in the knowledge most of the jobs on there are fake, or there will be a thousand Eastern Europeans younger and more willing to work for illegal wages because they are 20 and living 8 to a room (and good luck to them for doing that, I'd do the same thing if I was 20 and Poland had a strong economy).

 

I don't get why it's an issue for a lot of people on here to play the game whilst they apply for real jobs they want? Hell, we may as well all just stick two fingers up to the system and cry A&D and cop out of the whole system for a while

[SabreSheep]

Because applying for jobs that are unsuitable and have no interest in taking undermines the whole system. Employers waste time and money dealing with frivilous applications that could be better spent on employing people.

 

Ad din the fact that a lot of jobs are fake and just data mining for agencies that then pass on all your information for profit.

 

Using UJM like you are opens you to risks. And is a waste of time.

 

Again who is being pedantic. Users who opt to job search using the best methods out there or the DWP for forcing people to use a system that does not work.

 

You have also failed to address the fact that the system generates unfair sanction doubts and causes many innocent people unacceptable hardship when like you they are trying to do everything asked of them

[Mcall]

Because applying for jobs that are unsuitable and have no interest in taking undermines the whole system. Employers waste time and money dealing with frivilous applications that could be better spent on employing people.

 

Ad din the fact that a lot of jobs are fake and just data mining for agencies that then pass on all your information for profit.

 

Using UJM like you are opens you to risks. And is a waste of time.

 

Again who is being pedantic. Users who opt to job search using the best methods out there or the DWP for forcing people to use a system that does not work.

 

You have also failed to address the fact that the system generates unfair sanction doubts and causes many innocent people unacceptable hardship when like you they are trying to do everything asked of them

 

Boo-hoo! Sorry SabreSheep I don't really get your point. Of course it's an unfair system! Life is an unfair system too! But to get my JSA pittance each week I'm willing to do what the system asks of me. Not TOO arduous really? I've been signing on far too long now to start pretending I'm outraged by benefits like some cheap Channel 5 doc. But I mean, really, we must at least try to help ourselves. I've had advisers trying to sanction me for unbelievable stuff, so just ticking a box of letting them see what I do on UJM doesn't seem to me to be the biggest thing worth dying for.

Edited November 26, 2014 by honeybee13

[SabreSheep]

Im not sure you are actually trying to constructively debate here.

 

Im merely giving reasons why people do not want to put themselves at risk, you are ignoring points completely.

 

As for helping themselves, you clearly did not read the posts about people being sanctioned when they are using methods far better than UJM?

 

I answered your question, you ignore the ones put to you. For now I think I shall desist from feeding the trolls.

[antone]

Essexmat and Lapsed Workaholic have covered the factual answers answers to this, so to avoid a bunfight I'm going to close this for now.

 

Superg, sorry to shut down your thread - it's no reflection on you, and feel free to start another one if you have any more questions.