PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 They aren't obliged to apply for the job, the employer isn't obliged to reply. Yes, it costs nothing to include this statement and at least sets the expectation that no reply means no. It is my understanding that if you're seeking 'Jobseekers allowance', then yes you are 'obliged' to apply for suitable vacancies, and provide evidence that you have done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 It is my understanding that if you're seeking 'Jobseekers allowance', then yes you are 'obliged' to apply for suitable vacancies, and provide evidence that you have done so. That's not really an obligation then is it, they could stop claiming job seekers allowance. Either way, I see no reason why a company should legally have to respond to potentially thousands of applicants at their own cost, merely because thousands of applicants have (at effectively no cost) applied for a position. The only affect such legislation would have would be to alter the way companies advertised to avoid getting lots of applicants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 That's not really an obligation then is it, they could stop claiming job seekers allowance. Either way, I see no reason why a company should legally have to respond to potentially thousands of applicants at their own cost, merely because thousands of applicants have (at effectively no cost) applied for a position. The only affect such legislation would have would be to alter the way companies advertised to avoid getting lots of applicants. Why would someone who is claiming jobseekers want to stop claiming? "Oh it's ok, I can easily manage with no money at all". If they're claiming then they are obliged to actively seek work, and that includes applying for 'suitable' vacancies. Also, I don't see that these 'thousands of applicants' "At no cost" have applied for jobs. Why no cost? Surely time spent putting a CV together, maybe tailoring it to suit the job applied for, printing it off, maybe writing a covering letter, the cost of the newspaper they saw the advert, or bus fair to the jobcentre where they might have seen the advert, or the cost of providing internet access (not to mention the cost of the computer), if they found it on the internet. The postage cost to actually send it. The cost of maybe photocopying the application to keep for evidence purposes in support of their JSA claim. Some people (who are genuinely job seeking) put a lot of time effort and expense into this. On your last point, maybe it might help if employers did find a way of reducing the number of applicants they recive, but I stress, not through discriminatory means. ie male only, or female only or a bland statement like, 'no time wasters'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I don't need to justify why they might want to stop, the fact is that they could stop and are therefore not obliged to apply for jobs. By "at no cost" I mean that there time is unpaid anyway, and so it has no cost attached to it. Unlike a business who has to pay someone for the time spent putting letters in envelopes or typing in email addresses. Of course the applicant hopes to get something out of the application, so they choose to invest the time and minimal costs in applying for their own benefit. The company can never benefit from telling someone that they won't be interviewed so it's a waste of money. If they advertise in the job centre then apart from specifying the skills they want (which I'm sure they do) how else can they stop one hundred qualified people applying for one position? And why should they waste half a day replying to them when they only have the time and inclination to interview the best 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I'm sure we could labour the point endlessly, but I won't bother. Thank heavens I've never applied to you for a job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 By "at no cost" I mean that there time is unpaid anyway Oh, and try telling a housewife that because they aren't actually paid a wage that their time is of no value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Oh, and try telling a housewife that because they aren't actually paid a wage that their time is of no value! Is it wrong to expect someone to invest a bit of their time in order to apply for ajob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Is it wrong to expect someone to invest a bit of their time in order to apply for ajob? Not at all. But it is wrong to say because you're not being paid, that time has no value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Fair enough, attach some notional value to it if you like. It's still reasonable to expect some effort to be attached to a job application and unreasonable to expect a company to reply to all applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Not at all. But it is wrong to say because you're not being paid, that time has no value! What has it actually cost someone in pounds and pence to apply for a job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.