JOBPATH???? Just got a letter please help

You might get lucky on jobpath, but be aware, many horror stories about them, including on this forum. Best of luck

liam650 wrote: »

So I got a letter to attend a Job Path session. I finished college in May have a 2.1 Business Level 8 degree so i assume i will be assisted in finding work equivalent to the level of education i have earned? any one else had experience with Job Path? I do not want to get my hopes up but I actually see it as a positive, getting help in applying to big companies

You are joking right?. They will expect you to apply for all local available jobs. Degrees dont mean jack chit when they have targets to hit. You are a number to them.

They're a useless shower. I was put on with them last year and all they ever were was an obstruction. They didn't care about the fact that I was repeating a college year externally and as a poster above said, they only see you as a number and a commission, as the Seetec centre itself receives a commission if they manage to place you into a job themselves, no matter what the job is. I'm technically still on the scheme but they haven't contacted me in months and never once checked my progress for job hunting even though they tell you at the beginning of the scheme to document every single job you've applied to. What's the point if nobody's going to verify it? The staff in the centre have it fairly handy though! Plenty of them browsing Facebook on their work computers and any time I had a 12 to 1 o'clock appointment, they'd tell anybody who was in the centre jobhunting to log off and leave at around the 12.45 mark because they were getting ready to head out for lunch.

I found part time work by myself earlier in the year but the wages weren't enough to sustain myself/was less than what I was getting on the dole, so I tried to apply to a government part-time work incentive scheme in the interim to help myself along while I built up some work experience and got a good reference from my employer, but my local social welfare office told me because I was on JobPath that they couldn't okay me on the scheme (even though I met all of the criteria for it and was fully eligible) until Seetec gave me the all clear. So I contacted them immediately.

After them forgetting to call me back countless times over the course of two weeks and a meeting with one of my 'employment advisors' (which changed on a near monthly basis, as did seemingly most of the staff in the place) who sat there with a blank look on her face completely oblivious to what I was entitled to from the government to the point where she had to sit and Google some of the department's policies in front of me, they told me that 'Sorry, we don't support people working part time' and blocked me from being placed on the scheme. This forced me to hand in my notice, much to the disappointment of my higher-ups because they found me to be a brilliant employee. I didn't want to leave but they forced my hand. They'd rather you sit on the dole long enough for them to earn a commission instead of letting you better yourself with whatever work you could find in the meantime.

I was in touch with an extremely helpful welfare officer throughout my entire ordeal and even he told me that they sounded like they haven't got their **** together and are actively hindering some people in making a better life for themselves because they completely disregard an individual's circumstances, but they can't do anything about it seemingly.

They're a farce

Edited footnote: For clarification, my experience has been with Seetec in Dublin, I wasn't aware that different companies operated the same JobPath scheme. New to all this craic

youtube! wrote: »

What I found sinister about the whole process was they now send him letters through the the mail with the Seetec logo and address of the centre printed on the back of the envelope thus tacitly informing the local postie that he is unemployed, I reckon that is a breach of data protection. Why should they be allowed to flagrantly disregard an individual's privacy?

Do you honestly think the postman actually cares whats on the envelope , along with any other services that have a logo on an envelope

Got called in for the initial group session thing with them today. Background : I started a part time Reception & IT course at college in September under the BTEI scheme (Back To Education Initiative) and it runs until the end of May. I tried to explain this to them and had a letter from the VTOS facilitator at the college but they weren't interested and said I can do the two things together.

All they're talking about is applying for jobs and I get the impression they want me to find a job of any description ASAP and to pack in the college course. Can they really do this : put pressure on me to find work and abandon my course, even though I'm trying to build up my qualifications and enhance my career prospects?

Twilightning wrote: »

If they're giving you dates to show up to the employment centre constantly, ring them beforehand and say you can't show up because you have college work to do. The worst they can do is contact the social welfare and tell them you're not cooperating, at which point you'd be able to just tell them what your situation is rather than the eejits running the scheme.

Cheers....I guess I'll just have to play it by ear and see what happens. This thing just seems a complete nuisance and a hindrance given that I've only just started my college course. I was surprised to hear from the Jobpath crowd at all, as I notified Social Welfare a few weeks ago that I had started my course and brought in forms from the college to be signed and everything.

Twilightning wrote: »

You can read the experience I had with them a few posts into this thread, I had a problem with them very similar to yours. The welfare officer I was dealing with looked a bit more into it for me and he told me that the names for the people placed onto these schemes are picked out of a hat of people who're down as unemployed, so as not to discriminate against people individually. It's just bad luck we were chosen

Yes, I did read your experiences above with them and you have my sympathy, it sounds like they gave you a lot of grief throughout. Did you find you got a bit more leeway with them regarding appointments because you were doing a college course? I'm with the Dublin branch like yourself and I'd be hopeful I'd get at least some breathing space.

There was a big report released recently on JobPath, lots of interesting information:

http://www.unitedpeople.ie/download/jobpath-a-unitedpeople-report/

Its very long, but interesting. From the sounds of things in that if you refuse to sign anything with Seetac at the first meeting, but do offer to engage otherwise, you can no longer be sanctioned. But Seetac won't want you because they won't be paid for you.

In regard to Seetec, what legislation (according to the Department of Social Protection) allowed
them to punish citizens, for refusing to sign into a private contract? To those being bullied into
signing, the Department of Social Protection would quote that they have the right to do so under
Section 13 of the Welfare and Pensions (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2013, amended Section
141 of the Social Protection Consolidation Act 2005. This supposedly (they many times have
claimed) gave them the right to impose a penalty rate following by a nine-week disqualification
period, that could be applied.

They were WRONG in doing so.

Not only were they wrong – they continued to apply on others, unwarranted illegal penalties
subsequently after they were informed as to tender rules. Anyone previously that had been
punished for refusing to sign their data rights away or disliked being forced into signing a private
contract, were made financially suffer with no legal basis to allow a punishment to be inflicted.
When one victim took the brave step to challenge what was going on, it was reluctantly
discovered by the state that…

“Having reviewed our internal Penalty Rate (PR) Circular in light of the original
decision to apply same, it was noted that it did not provide for the application of a
Penalty rate and subsequent nine-week disqualification period in a situation where
someone refused to sign the Personal Progression Plan (PPP) but indicated that they
would still engage with a prescribed programme.”

This is stated in section seven, clearly, in correspondence with a victim of Seetec and the Department of Social Protection’s wrong - also possibly illegal actions. The
letter stating the above was sent to a victim on behalf of the Department of Social Protection.
Had he like very many, not actual questioned what they were attempting to do in specific detail,
he too would have been made to further suffer. The outcome was that he was refunded what he
was entitled to in the first place. Had he not been determined to defend his legal rights, the state
and Seetec would have continued to impose their PR punishment. They continue to do so with
others to this very day. They are also not telling similar objectors they cannot be punished.