Seetec - Be Careful What You Sign For...

Lazarus.1970s

Hello everyone! I am new to the site as a member (despite having been a reader for some time). I just wanted to point out something that I gather is being overlooked by many when they are being called into to attend JobPath with Seetec for the first time.

Be careful what you are signing for and the implications it may have. In particular I refer to page 3 of the progression plan that they make you sign on their PCs. In every case I have come across, this page has been scrolled past and not offered to job seekers to read before they are made to sign. It is only after you have signed that you get a copy printed off.

On that 3rd page are your agreed actions (i.e. the contract you are entering with them and have to adhere to in order to continue to receive JSA). Some of these points will have been discussed with you but in every case I have heard so far the one that is always overlooked is that which states "Attend a minimum of 1 job interview every 30 working days".

Now, it may just be me BUT - how can anyone guarantee this - especially when you are in rural Ireland like myself and can't even really guarantee that there is a suitable job to apply for every 30 days!

For anyone not taking this seriously (and Seetec will try to brush this off if you raise it), the implication of this is that the government can potentially, if you do not attend an interview within a 30 day period, stop any social welfare payments you are receiving or impose a penalty. I have raised this several times with Seetec - at first they said this was a throwback from the English system (as it is a UK company), then they just suggested that they take no notice of that and I shouldn't worry. As a result I insisted that they sign the sheet I received to say that I did not agree to that action (i.e. attending an interview every 30 days) and that they update their records to state the same, which they reluctantly did.

For anyone attending these meetings or just being called in, I suggest that you do the same - especially given the state of the European and Irish economy these days. Believe me, I used to work for the Home Office in the UK and I have seen exactly what governments are capable of digging up and using when it suits them to save money.

Mrs OBumble

If you're not applying for a job every 30 days, then I'd seriously question whether you are looking for work, vs absenting yourself from the labour market.

CosmicSmash

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're not applying for a job every 30 days, then I'd seriously question whether you are looking for work, vs absenting yourself from the labour market.

The op said attending an interview, not applying for a job. Big difference in the two.

Oliver Beetroot

Seems very onerous, I can't imagine someone seeking employment would have the time to fulfil this requirement, what with not working and such.

Fries-With-That

Thank you to the OP for pointing out this clause in the contract, in fairness I totally understand your misgivings.

The point of being on jobseekers allowance is that you are looking for employment, any employment.

You mentioned being in a rural environment isn't conducive to the requirement of 1 interview every 30 days, I see that as 12 in a 360 day period not too much to expect from someone that is tasked with finding employment at the expense of the state, the transport links around this country would not preclude anyone from attending an interview anywhere in the country.

I totally understand that it may not be easy to find a job in persons chosen profession but the old adage that it is easier to find a job when you have a job still holds true in my experience.

On another point you say that the page with this clause on it is scrolled past as an avoidance measure by the people expecting you to sign it, It would behove any person signing any contract to read it completely before signing it.

I wish you the best of luck with your employment search, as someone that has experienced unemployment several times I fully understand the difficulties it brings.

smjm

Oliver Beetroot wrote: »

Seems very onerous, I can't imagine someone seeking employment would have the time to fulfil this requirement, what with not working and such.

You can apply for a hundred jobs and not get offered a single interview. Actively seeking work and actually getting an interview are very different things.

Lazarus.1970s

Just to clarify - my "misgivings" with this is with regard to signing to a clause which you do not have direct control over. Being told that to effectively qualify for JSA you agree to ATTEND and interview every 30 days is making the assumption that you will be asked to attend an interview in the first place. You could send 100 applications out, to anywhere in the country in a given month but you can't guarantee you will even get a response, let alone an interview and as such it is an unreasonable condition.

You should be responsible for seeking work. You cannot be held wholly responsible for being offered an interview as you are not the one doing the offering. You can do your best to get an interview and if you are offered one, you should be expected to attend but the condition does not state that you should attend in interview if offered, It simply states "Attend a minimum 1 job interview every 30 working days". This post is only to raise awareness of the condition for those who may have had this sidelined within their meeting.

Oliver Beetroot

smjm wrote: »

You can apply for a hundred jobs and not get offered a single interview. Actively seeking work and actually getting an interview are very different things.

If the exact wording and full context was posted it would be clear that the welfare recipients aren't expected to magic interviews out of thin air.

smjm

Oliver Beetroot wrote: »

If the exact wording and full context was posted it would be clear that the welfare recipients aren't expected to magic interviews out of thin air.

That's a reasonable comment. Shame you didn't post that in the first place, rather than the bitchy comment you went with!

Conall Cernach

Do Seetec simultaneously promise to get the person at least one interview every month for a position that they would be suitably qualified for?

Oliver Beetroot

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Do Seetec simultaneously promise to get the person at least one interview every month for a position that they would be suitably qualified for?

How would that work?

Oliver Beetroot

smjm wrote: »

That's a reasonable comment. Shame you didn't post that in the first place, rather than the bitchy comment you went with!

Fair enough, but it was an appropriate response based on the standard of posting set by the (misleading) OP.

Conall Cernach

Oliver Beetroot wrote: »

How would that work?

Well, I can't see how it would work but they are requiring people to agree to have one interview a month where that is entirely up to prospective employers whether to interview a candidate or not. When I was on the dole I'd say I had an interview to application ratio of maybe 1 in 30 and that was applying for stuff that I was qualified for.

St. Leibowitz

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Well, I can't see how it would work but they are requiring people to agree to have one interview a month where that is entirely up to prospective employers whether to interview a candidate or not. When I was on the dole I'd say I had an interview to application ratio of maybe 1 in 30 and that was applying for stuff that I was qualified for.

I agree. I was in a similar situation. I was applying regularly for jobs which I was well qualified for, but not getting interviews. I had the benefit of several agencies and HR professionals reviewing my CV, and I tailored each application for the specific role and company and role I was applying for.

I was successful in getting a role which suited my qualifications and experience. I worked damned hard to get a job. I suspect many of the people who failed to read the OP, or failed to understand it were the type of people who wouldn't give me the opportunity to interview. They see that someone isn't working, and decide that they're scum.

To make it clear for the people who don't understand, you need to have an invitation to attend for an interview. You can't just turn up at the door of a business and demand one. Putting a condition on the receipt of welfare that you need to attend at least one interview per 30 days is not something that you can agree to in advance.

To say that the OP should have put up the exact wording is a cop out for people who are slow to understand. The OP was very clear. Very very clear. But maybe the high horses were too high for some people to read it clearly.

Oliver Beetroot

St. Leibowitz wrote: »

I agree. I was in a similar situation. I was applying regularly for jobs which I was well qualified for, but not getting interviews. I had the benefit of several agencies and HR professionals reviewing my CV, and I tailored each application for the specific role and company and role I was applying for.

I was successful in getting a role which suited my qualifications and experience. I worked damned hard to get a job. I suspect many of the people who failed to read the OP, or failed to understand it were the type of people who wouldn't give me the opportunity to interview. They see that someone isn't working, and decide that they're scum.

To make it clear for the people who don't understand, you need to have an invitation to attend for an interview. You can't just turn up at the door of a business and demand one. Putting a condition on the receipt of welfare that you need to attend at least one interview per 30 days is not something that you can agree to in advance.

To say that the OP should have put up the exact wording is a cop out for people who are slow to understand. The OP was very clear. Very very clear. But maybe the high horses were too high for some people to read it clearly.

Hearsay.

St. Leibowitz

Again you miss the point.

I accept that there was no evidence of the actual wording. I accept that this would have been useful.

My issue is not that someone pointed this out, but that it was used as an excuse to protect the people who posted saying that people should have no issue signing up to one interview every 30 days. They didn't ask for evidence. They just went into judgement mode.

bcklschaps

Interesting topic and thank you OP for pointing out that sneaky condition.

I am not on JSA but will probably be on it in the New Year. Is there a requirement to sign up on this JobPath scheme with Seetec if you are on JSA for a certain period of time?

I would personally have no problem attending an interview every 30 days, but If the onus is on me to 'deliver' an interview every 30 days or face a penalty ....then thats a different thing alltogether. If I have to deliver an interview every 30 days, it would obviously mean me having to apply for all kinds of jobs some that I would have no interest in, just to get the interview and tick the box. That is a waste of time.

BTW : Why couldn't the DSP have hired an Irish company to deliver this service ? or is there no company out there in Paddy's Banana Republic capable of even-handedly matching Employers with jobs to Job Seekers.

Bettercaulsaul

Lazarus.1970s wrote: »

Be careful what you are signing for and the implications it may have. In particular I refer to page 3 of the progression plan that they make you sign on their PCs. In every case I have come across, this page has been scrolled past and not offered to job seekers to read before they are made to sign. It is only after you have signed that you get a copy printed off.

On that 3rd page are your agreed actions (i.e. the contract you are entering with them and have to adhere to in order to continue to receive JSA). Some of these points will have been discussed with you but in every case I have heard so far the one that is always overlooked is that which states "Attend a minimum of 1 job interview every 30 working days".

So in essence, what you're saying is, Seetec, a private company, is getting a person to "sign a contract" without the person allowed to read the entire contract?

That is illegal.

Lazarus.1970s

I questioned the legality of Seetec not allowing job seekers to fully read the contract before signing it on the PC. After raising my concerns with this issue and the wording of this contract, I stated that I wanted the clause regarding the interview taken out. It ended up with me pushing the Seetec advisor to write on the contract that I had not agreed to this action and that I was not contractually obliged to perform it, which I then made him sign. However it seemed they could do nothing to amend this on their computer record. At least I have a hard copy as evidence should I ever need to use it and I suggest anyone going through this process do the same.

I'm amazed that Ireland took on Seetec in light of their dubious work practices in the UK which the Irish Government were aware of before engaging them. As has been pointed out, surely there was an Irish company that this could have been outsourced to, or even better more could have been done to simply improve the relevant areas of the public service e.g Intreo.

There were 3 instances of whistleblowing on Seetec's dodgy practices in the UK which the Department of Work and Pensions failed to investigate thoroughly, before concluding there was no wrong doing (they didn't even bother to interview the whistleblowers concerned!).

The internet is littered with articles about the scams they pulled with disabled job seekers (I can't post the links here as a new user - just google Seetec and Fraud UK) - just worth knowing the kind of organisation you'll be dealing with if your unlucky enough to be in a similar position:


As for who can be put on JobPath, I was told this was randomly selected, but it appears here that almost everyone is being referred over, especially if long term unemployed. Their staff numbers seem to have trebled here since I started on this. At least they're getting some people employed, even if only within their own offices!

Wanderer78

Lazarus.1970s wrote:

I'm amazed that Ireland took on Seetec in light of their dubious work practices in the UK which the Irish Government were aware of before engaging them. As has been pointed out, surely there was an Irish company that this could have been outsourced to, or even better more could have been done to simply improve the relevant areas of the public service e.g Intreo.

Not surprised at all, it shows our politicians have no real interest in dealing with the complex root causes of long-term unemployment, it doesn't bother them at all if they exasperate these complex issues or even create complex problems for those involved. Just as long as they see the unemployment figures fall and the market returns to 'equilibrium', disturbing really!

Newbie29

Lazarus.1970s wrote: »

I questioned the legality of Seetec not allowing job seekers to fully read the contract before signing it on the PC. After raising my concerns with this issue and the wording of this contract, I stated that I wanted the clause regarding the interview taken out. It ended up with me pushing the Seetec advisor to write on the contract that I had not agreed to this action and that I was not contractually obliged to perform it, which I then made him sign. However it seemed they could do nothing to amend this on their computer record. At least I have a hard copy as evidence should I ever need to use it and I suggest anyone going through this process do the same.

I'm amazed that Ireland took on Seetec in light of their dubious work practices in the UK which the Irish Government were aware of before engaging them. As has been pointed out, surely there was an Irish company that this could have been outsourced to, or even better more could have been done to simply improve the relevant areas of the public service e.g Intreo.

There were 3 instances of whistleblowing on Seetec's dodgy practices in the UK which the Department of Work and Pensions failed to investigate thoroughly, before concluding there was no wrong doing (they didn't even bother to interview the whistleblowers concerned!).

The internet is littered with articles about the scams they pulled with disabled job seekers (I can't post the links here as a new user - just google Seetec and Fraud UK) - just worth knowing the kind of organisation you'll be dealing with if your unlucky enough to be in a similar position:


As for who can be put on JobPath, I was told this was randomly selected, but it appears here that almost everyone is being referred over, especially if long term unemployed. Their staff numbers seem to have trebled here since I started on this. At least they're getting some people employed, even if only within their own offices!

Can i ask, would you do your shopping in tesco? Or aldi, or maybe Lidl? Or do you always only seem to stick to supervalu or londis??
Why is it that its a problem that a UK company are have won a contract in this country which involves helping people back into employment but when you want a cheap loaf of bread you'll give your money straight to a foreign company?? Where do you buy your clothes? Where is the petrol from that you pay for in your car?
Seems to me like people jump on an ever lasting argument about conpanies from other countries coming into our country when they feel it directly affects them but in truth here that company are trying to help people. Do ypu want to be helped? Then let them help you..

Lollipoppins

Newbie29 wrote: »

Can i ask, would you do your shopping in tesco? Or aldi, or maybe Lidl? Or do you always only seem to stick to supervalu or londis??
Why is it that its a problem that a UK company are have won a contract in this country which involves helping people back into employment but when you want a cheap loaf of bread you'll give your money straight to a foreign company?? Where do you buy your clothes? Where is the petrol from that you pay for in your car?
Seems to me like people jump on an ever lasting argument about conpanies from other countries coming into our country when they feel it directly affects them but in truth here that company are trying to help people. Do ypu want to be helped? Then let them help you..

You missed out Dunnes, Marks n Sparks... :ðŸ˜

Glad you weren't being serious cause that would just be too stupid for anyone to really mean it.

Newbie29

Lollipoppins wrote: »

You missed out Dunnes, Marks n Sparks... :ðŸ˜

Glad you weren't being serious cause that would just be too stupid for anyone to really mean it.

Well done ðŸ‘👠what a reply

satguy

Newbie29 wrote: »

Seems to me like people jump on an ever lasting argument about conpanies from other countries coming into our country when they feel it directly affects them but in truth here that company are trying to help people. Do ypu want to be helped? Then let them help you..

Charities help people,, but this Seetec Company is just over here to make money,, they had a lot of their contracts in the UK canceled, and need money.

They more people that sign up with them, the more they make for their UK shareholders.

Newbie29

satguy wrote: »

Charities help people,, but this Seetec Company is just over here to make money,, they had a lot of their contracts in the UK canceled, and need money.

They more people that sign up with them, the more they make for their UK shareholders.

Every single business in ireland that is not an irish born business is over here to make money, they're not over here for the craic! Dors it really bother you that they're British? And if so, do you feel the same about the rest of the British business community in Ireland?
Employability is a for profit industry, charities are, suppose to be, not for profit. What about thr recruitment company Hays? They're not Irish, but yet are well known and liked in our country, and they do the same thing as what Seetec do, help people into employment amd profit from it, so whats the difference? Is it because they are in conjunction with the DSP?

Golfproam

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Well, I can't see how it would work but they are requiring people to agree to have one interview a month where that is entirely up to prospective employers whether to interview a candidate or not. When I was on the dole I'd say I had an interview to application ratio of maybe 1 in 30 and that was applying for stuff that I was qualified for.

Tell them you have interviews. It is not possible for them to call a company to confirm as the company is not allowed to share such information. That is what I did.

wmpdd3

They have called a company that I worked with to find out how the interview went.
The company quoted DPA.

Golfproam

wmpdd3 wrote: »

They have called a company that I worked with to find out how the interview went.
The company quoted DPA.

Exactly. And speaking of the DPA, the only communication I will have with Seetec now I am employed is quoting the DPA telling them to remove all data they hold on me.