Tuesday, November 27 2012, 7:48PM
“It's possible you may not have been the most suitable candidate.”
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 8:38PM
“Went to an interview with Rolls Royce in their IT department the other week,Drove 30 miles, got there 45 minutes early, did the induction video for health and safety,then sat there for about 30 minutes, eventually a young lad turned up In a company body warmer, told me he didn't think I was coming, despite me having a copy of the email from his boss telling me the time and place, and my confirmation.They then hurriedly arranged somewhere to conduct the interview, an empty coffee room.offered me a coffee, started chatting, no paperwork, or copy of my CV. I offered them one,they said no we've got it somewhere. Told me they have an open ended budget would provide the necessary training, someone else came in un-introduced and joined in.We were interrupted for phone calls. They didn't read any of the certificates they'd asked me to bring with me.Asked me if I could commute, it all looked like I was going to walk into the job,they said they had 4 more to interview and would let me know by the end of the week.I was in the interview for about 20 minutes maximum.This Job was for installation of infrastructure on Submarines.Bearing in mind I come from that background, have not long left, so I pretty much know everyone in that sector already - from the top to the bottom - I would seriously doubt there was anyone with my contacts or experience. however.nearly 2 months - didn't even let me know, no email, or phone number. Nothing.I think I caught them unawares - they even mentioned they had no ceiling on their budget, seemed like kids in a sweetshop to me - who'd got a lucky contract with a big company. Nothing about them came across as professional.I also got turned down by Fujitsu - after going through their entire selection process, only 8 of us got interviews for 10 positions so we should all have got the job, when asked my ambitions I told them I wanted to get my foot on the ladder and hopefully progress. I was phoned by my career advisor who said they had called him to say I would be bored, he thinks they were worried I might make them look bad. After all I had their skills, combined with a forces work ethic. I asked how would I be bored earning money? He said the same to them.. In this climate I would sooner be in a boring job earning money, than out of work earning nothing and being bored and lazy.”
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 9:11PM
“I agree a lot with what you are saying here Chappy. Many interviews are not as they seem and they do not get back to you, or if they do. It is upon the lines of we had more experienced candidates that match the job role, etc. Feedback is non-existent, which does not help for the next interview. Do you feel that there should be better interview processes? Sometimes, it does feel like a number game, the fact companies need to tick box to meet government requirements. In other words they do not intend to offer a job to certain people, they invite to the interview. Therefore, making the interview process a waste of time and giving false hope to candidates.”
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 8:48PM
“exactly that C10, I was quite nervous about the Fujitsu interview, it involved a day of exams, with interviews late afternoon if you passed all the tests.It was my first interview after leaving the forces - so my first one for 23 years.The tests were simple - not being big headed but I seriously think I stood out in at least 2 of the tasks from the rest of my group, simply because I have good organisational and leadership skills, and I am analytical and fairly intelligent.I was told on one test by the interviewer that I was exceptional - there is no right outcome to the task - it's about how you make your choices and who takes charge. (Your plane has crashed in the jungle, you can take 5 items type scenario. I was the first one they'd seen who said to take the Malaria tablets at the scene rather than carry them as they are no use in the box and you can then take 5 other items. They all ruled out taking the Sat Phone as it would be no use if the battery went flat, but I told them you should use it immediately so the rescue party can find the wreckage and you should try to stay a safe distance not too far from the wreckage, - that sort of thing, most of my group wanted to leave immediately and go on a camping trip, not knowing where they were) Anyway I obviously did too well.As I said about the Rolls Royce job - new company with a big contract and budget, who really weren't the most professional, they didn't even consider that I was their customer only 10 months before the interview. But you are right, all the time I spent travelling, and the fuel was not only a waste of my time,but in the incidence of the fujitsu interview, I think my performance may have denied someone else the chance. So not only have they wasted my time and got my hopes up, but dashed those of someone else who may also have been good enough.And some constructive criticism would have been welcome.”
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 9:20PM
“I think you are right there Chappy and City10. I have had a few interviews and have found many do NEVER have back to me and even when I call for the reasons why, I don't get an answer. For me they are a defiantly a fix with internal candidates going and getting most of the roles.”
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 9:28PM
“They are all fixed, we all know that!!”
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 10:38PM
“Equal opportunity and employment law means that many places of employment have to advertise and interview for a position even if they have someone working in the company already in mind for the job. So it is possible to go for an interview for a position that is 'fixed'”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 9:01AM
“Problem is Mam - I can't afford to keep travelling 60 miles each way and spending a whole day going to fixed interviews.”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 9:52AM
“Its a difficult one Chappy1884, its not actually illegal not to advertise the position and give it to someone in mind, but the company is then left open to accusations of equal opportunity discrimination both from potential applicants internally and externally if it becomes known that the position was available and given without being advertised. Most choose to advertise for that reason. And its not illegal to advertise when someone is already in mind...very tricky :/”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 11:12AM
“Thats true mam35 & chappy coz my mate got a job the other week in a shop coz her mums works there and she helped her get in. Loads of people were at the interview and i would feel mad if i made the effort knowing i was wasting my time :( x”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 11:33AM
“Should the law change then, should interviews candidates only been interviewed if there a fair chance of the job? In other words no internal candidates (or interview them separately) or are we all just government statistics so the company is seeing to be giving an equal chance/opportunity to all? I have travelled miles in the past for a fixed interview; I was not impressed at all. The woman who got the job I found out later that she was/is related to one of the bosses, so no more!”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 1:35PM
“The problem with changing the law (anti-discriminatory laws) is that it opens too many doors to the old discriminatory practices, like the one Rachel describes, anyone at that interview could now challenge that company, especially if they have qualifications etc which meant they were more suitable to the job. The employer would have to defend allowing the family member the position and whether it was the correct decision. People would be jumping hoops to get family members in jobs that they are not qualified for, men would be queue jumping women, and vice-versa. Its just too difficult to change.”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 4:26PM
“They would justify it by saying that they have previous experience of the person's character, and they believed that despite the lack of qualifications, (assuming Rachels friend was indeed less qualified, she may have been equally qualified), they felt Rachels friend was the best candidate for the job because she fitted their personality profile and her family connection with the company would give some insurance of her loyalty.Like you say Mam - it's a can of worms if you change things,Headhunters are employed to find staff and make them an offer for jobs that aren't listed,or someone is about to get fired or has said they will be leaving but haven't gone yet.It's big business and is not illegal - but if the company interviews 10 people for a job,and the headhunter they paid to get someone has provided one candidate, then you can guess who's CV is top of the pile, not the one who applied for the job, but the one they went looking for.”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 7:19PM
“It would be nice to know if Rachel's friend is qualified or not firstly before we pass judgment. However, I am sure the family connection was a plus point for this person. I feel companies will pointlessly interview people, let us face it in this current job market there is a high demand of people looking for work. Any candidate would need to be fully qualified, as the demand is too high for them not to be. I have gone for jobs where people have had a PhD and much experience in their respective job areas/roles. There is no way someone without qualifications would gain the job even if they were related or knew someone within the company. All anyone can do is go to the interview and let the hands of fate do their magic!”
Thursday, November 29 2012, 11:17PM
“No one has judged Rachels friend to be less qualified, hence the portion in parenthesis which both validates and discounts the assumption.If Peter Jones applied to run a Venture Capitalism Business, and So did some Business Graduate - then I doubt there would be many employers who would take the graduate regardless of qualifications - even though Peter Jones is self taught and technically isn't as qualified. His experience and value to the business could never be discounted.There is no rule regarding an absolute adherence to a minimum level of certification, except for jobs where a trained and assessed skill is required, such as a Pilot, or Driver, or Medical Doctor or Teacher. Family Businesses have every right to appoint anyone they like at any level within their business - after all, if it all goes to a ball of chalk it is their business that suffers.It is up to the panel conducting the interview to determine the best candidate from those selected for interview regardless of what they can and can't prove from their CV or application form. My biggest selling factor is my Security Clearance, I applied for a field engineers job, I don't have all the qualifications necessary, but I have the most important one, which means I can start work straight away, the other courses required to get me up to speed could be accommodated as on the job training. The reason I was offered this role, because to induct someone without my clearance would take months and cost around 50 thousand pounds. Whereas sparing me for a few hours a week to attend a Network Engineering Module, and IT Security Module would cost a couple of thousand maximum. I didn't take the job because the upheaval of re-locating myself and my wife wouldn't be rewarded sufficiently to justify it.But as I've agreed with most of you, it doesn't feel right, but as Mam says - there are rules which say you have to offer it to people in order to be judged to be giving a fair crack of the whip, you can limit your applicants by adding caveats such as "experience working at level xxx within company xxx or equivalent is essential." - that way you can pretty much rule out your external applicants from the off.Doesn't make it right though (and I can't believe I am sticking up for a practice which I have felt wronged by.)”
Friday, November 30 2012, 1:07AM
“It's almost a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes there are jobs you go for that have obviously been given to someone else already and there were genuine interviews. You never know which one you're going into and no I do not agree that this is right. In all cases the best candidate should get the job, but what denotes the best candidate? In my experience I have found that if you get an interview they have already decided from your CV that you can do the job. The interview is to decide who can do it while fitting in the best. So put all the important "can do" stuff in the CV and charm the socks off them in the interview :-)”
Friday, November 30 2012, 12:00PM
“Exactly Oh_come_on, there are thousands of Jobs that Stephen Hawking is easilyacademically qualified to fulfil, but his disability would be a serious setback if they involvedany physical aspects. But if you'd never heard of him and he threw his CV in the ring, you'd have to interview him to find out if he was suitable.It would be immediately obvious upon his arrival in his case, but if you had two identical candidates, one who recently was fired for negligence and another who had been made redundant - you would be assessing them both, and neither would have their reasons for dismissal on their CV so you'd have to ask them at the interview, and it would definitely help formulate a decision.Honest interviews are always a good things.Interviews after a decision has been made are the issue. They are unfair to the candidates.But at the end of the day, it's up to the giant who he gives his beans to.”
Friday, November 30 2012, 3:10PM
“Just to clear this up:"It would be nice to know if Rachel's friend is qualified or not firstly before we pass judgment." This was referring to Rachel's friend gaining the role and not judging her gaining solely on her connection to her mother! I was not stating that anyone here was passing judgment. The point was Rachel's friend is more than likely to be qualified. Hence my point if you read further on in that post...Companies have to been seen giving everyone a fair chance of employment regardless of ages, disability, gender, and so on. The government will want to see the level of experience, backgrounds, sex, etc to make sure all companies are complying with the equal rights etc. Therefore, this means all candidates are seen to have an equal and fair chance on interview day. I am not sure this is the case at all; I have not been to many fair and equal interviews to date. From the above replies it seems many others do agree with me thus far...?”
Friday, November 30 2012, 8:46PM
“I would say I took on around 30-35 employees during my time in a managerial role. I would say that oh_come_on is spot on. I had usually made up my mind from the CVs as to who I thought was most 'qualified' for the job, however, often in interview it became clear they were not suited to the job. There is a difference between being qualified and being suitable. For my line of work personality, confidence and a surety of oneself for certain roles is crucial as in the hotelier trade you are dealing with the public throughout the day/night.”
Sunday, December 02 2012, 1:36PM
“That is an interesting point mam35, thank you for raising it – "There is a difference between being qualified and being suitable." Good point made.”
Monday, December 03 2012, 1:10AM
“Pretty much sums up what I've said in my last two posts.A CV is a snapshot of what someone has achieved, qualifications and what they expect to achieve and a brief outline of the person. You cannot really assess the person until they are sat in front of you. What defines suitability is often completely independent of the qualifications required (or desired).The government can have as many criteria for what constitutes a fair interview process as they like, but they aren't going to sit on interview boards, and nor are they going to endorse tribunals which make employers justify every appointment. Because in shore, companies will just weed people out at the application process, therefore not showing any prejudice, and narrow it down to a couple who will go through for interview, rather than interviewing all applicants.”
Monday, December 03 2012, 2:09PM
“Its an extremely diffcult subject isnt it. For some roles though I wouldnt expect much else other then qualifications to come into it. But some lines of work its a different story.
There were particular questions I asked, and things I looked for, I could tell some funny stories about some interviews. But the main thing for me was if someone wasnt making eye contact, was looking at the ground, seemed overly nervous..I know that sounds harsh for an interview, but even on a first day an employee could be faced with a complaint or cry for help from a holidaymaker, they are not always easy to deal with and you have to be firm and confident. When you think they have saved for their holiday, everything has to be perfect, plus you get the ones that find complaints to get an upgrade :)
I always say that the customer is right, I didnt mind at all the ones trying to get an upgrade, more power to them lol. I usually could tell and gave them an upgrade at first call instead of wasting time with numerous pull-ups and complaints.”
Monday, December 03 2012, 9:06PM
“I got my job without knowing anyone in the company.”
Monday, December 03 2012, 9:22PM
“What is that last post about mam35? Holidays!!!”
Monday, December 03 2012, 9:35PM
“heymy friend did have all the right grades for the job so i guess that was fair?? it is really hard to get a job now and if it is a fix then it is even harder :( xx”
Monday, December 03 2012, 9:52PM
“Okay, thanks for the information Rachel :)”
Tuesday, December 04 2012, 11:31PM
“The job market is tough at the moment. I managed to get my current job because I worked for the same shop two years ago - a job I only got because of the New Walk Job Center which managed to start a program of helping 16-24 year olds into jobs (the application was all through the job center, and the interview came from that, they helped me with everything).Previously to that I was told I didn't have the experience, even after going to the interview. Why invite me to an interview if from my CV you can see I don't have the experience to perform the job? (although I don't know why a typist needed experience when I had a GCSE and A Level in ICT, and am fully skilled with Microsoft and Lotus systems and flexible to learn more...)I was even turned down from three charity shops (voluntary positions) because I didn't have retail experience! I haven't visited those shops since out of protest.Interviews do sometimes feel like a fix based on my previous experiences, but without being a manager myself and dealing with the interview process I don't know whether it's true or not. I suppose I prevented someone taking my current position (although it wasn't advertised) as I visited the store and was offered the job there and then, so I suppose contacts are useful in the world of work.I'm sure this will be the same when I move through my PhD to lecturing, as I may end up stuck at my current university (if the funding is there!)”
Wednesday, December 05 2012, 11:32AM
“I had a weird experience with the Job Centre, don't know if it's normal or not,but in Newark you have to log on to view the jobs, to get a log in you have to register for job seekers allowance, I have a forces pension, not a huge amount but handy to get me through, and I was told that if I claim job seekers allowance I would have to surrender some or all of this pension that I worked for and am entitled to. I can accept paying tax and National insurance when it goes over the threshold, but not surrendering it to claim an allowance I don't really want. It would be a handy top up. but I simply want access to the job adverts,they even have a security guard in there and lines on the carpet you can't cross.Made me feel like a convict in the exercise yard.. as I wasn't aware of the line on the carpet, and instead of just saying "do you mind stepping back over the line Sir, he was instantly on guard and made a bit of scene raising his voice and telling me to get back.Maybe they get trouble in there, I don't know.. but it certainly didn't make me eager to go back.Now I don't know whether to register or not. I don't want to claim something if I am not entitled and end up with a judgement against me. But I need a job, and I can't apply if I can't read the adverts. Is this normal now?”
Wednesday, December 05 2012, 10:20PM
“I am not sure how it works in the Job Centre (Jobcentre Plus). I have always been in work and therefore I have not been unemployed before. I have a feeling though some other users might be able to add light on the running of the Job Centre? The labour market looks the worse I have even seen in my lifetime. Let us hope it picks up soon and fast!”
Thursday, December 06 2012, 7:55PM
“When I was on JSA (about 4 months) it was horrible. Some of the people collecting benefits were disgusting - one woman came in (on a Friday morning), with 6 kids in toe, tells the oldest (about 14) to go and buy her cigarettes. Amazingly she, and her kids, were dressed head-to-toe in things like superdry. I was astounded! I don't know how she afforded it! Most of my money went on rent/bills to my parents.There were a few times when people kicked-off, and with the increase in unemployment I'm not surprised they've cracked down on security. There were a few hairy moments when I was in there - I got scared a couple of times. I was an 18 year old, 5'3" girl. So good on them for cracking down.Chappy, you can use the search facility on their website (comes up with the same vacancies), you don't even have to go in.”
Friday, December 07 2012, 5:15PM
“thanks Becki, I concur about your image of the place, there were an uncountable number of fag ends outside the door in Newark, and chewing gum everywhere and even a couple of strong bow cans.. all the essentials for getting a job.”
Friday, December 07 2012, 9:31PM
“Benefits are for losers or are they, most people seem to make a nice life-style from the benefits. Why work?”
Saturday, December 08 2012, 12:31PM
“firstly, most charity shops only take good quality clothes, you would be surpirised how many designer clothes ive got from charity shops for very little money, and I expect benefit claimants frequent those shops quite regularly. Secondly, smoking is an addiction, and just because someone doesnt have a job, doesnt mean they can give up, although many see it desirable that they do if they dont have a inflow of cash from a job, I certainly would find it difficult to give up, even if I found myself reliant on benefits.”
Saturday, December 08 2012, 12:39PM
“The constant emphasis on unemployed people being somehow 'well off' really does make me sick to my stomach..having been in that position myself during redundancies, with 2 children, it was the worst time of my life. I wouldnt wish it on anybody, and in fact I did manage to give up smoking for that time, but I was miserable, and still me and my partner went without food on many occasions although our children didnt. I cant believe anyone actually believes any government just hands out money willy nilly, it has never been like that and it never will. Benefits are calculated on the minimum needed to live on, and in fact it doesnt account for the ever rising cost of heating etc. When I was on benefits for a short time I was intelligent enough to calculate what had been given for what, and left over for gas and electric was around £5 per week...”
Saturday, December 08 2012, 4:55PM
“mam35 - the comment I was making about the woman after fags wasn't that she was a smoker, it was the fact that she wanted her under-18 year old daughter to go and buy them, illegally. Charity shops: surely it would be a good thing to train up one or two under-24s to help build their skills. Just because I didn't work in a shop before doesn't mean I don't have the skills to do it. My current job thankfully took me on when I had no experience, and they have constantly praised me on my merchandising and sales skills.I agree that most people on benefits aren't well off - I certainly struggled! There are however some people who seem to get "all the luck".”
Saturday, December 08 2012, 5:54PM
“I dont think its people getting 'all the luck' nobody gets more then is needed to live on, that is the way benefits work. I think its more of a case of some people are happy to get into debt rather then suffer hardship. I did actually take on a couple of loans and a credit card during that time, for some things, luckily we came out of our crisis and managed to pay it all back, but many dont. People think unemployed cannot get credit, when in fact they are often targetted..Companies make more out of those who cant pay back, as they can charge for late payments etc.”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 1:45AM
“mam35 I seldom disagree with you. But I do believe the Unemployed on benefits fall into two main categories,Those without a job - who need a bit of help, and are prepared to work to get themselves back into a position which gives them stability and self respect. (like yourself).And those who have either given up, never tried and simply can't be bothered. Sadly these are the group who are stereotypical benefit claimants. Whilst you argue from a personal perspective, these are the people who most hard working tax payers see as the ones taking the most out with none or very little intention of putting anything back in.It is only lately that people have started to raise an opinion and want every penny of the tax they pay accounted for, no one should be afforded a free ride anymore. There is both adulation for this stance from a lot of tax payers, but in the same vane there are thousands who see any type of benefit reform as some sort of threat, and so they should in all honesty.Everyone feels it is their right to criticise the rich for what they have - and demand for the assets of the rich to be taxed in addition to their income.. how would they feel if the policy applied to the poor also.. i.e. we don't just tax your income, but we make you pay tax on everything you've ever bought with it that you still own. This is what some people want for the Rich.. I've always been an advocate that if we all pay one rate of tax and one person works harder than another and earns more income then their contribution in Effort as Well as the higher amount of money paid in tax should be sufficient.10 percent of something going into the pot, will always be worth more than 10 percent of nothing. And if the Rich person employs 50 workers, where the poor person can't be bothered to even get their own fags - and takes money out of the pot, who is contributing the most.There is something intrinsically wrong with society, where the Rich don't want to fund the system, as they are affluent enough not to need it's benefits. And the Poor want the rich to put in more, not to provide jobs and wages, but to perpetuate the benefits system. So who ends up paying.. Those in the Middle.. The easy targets, Funnily enough the demographic least likely to commit fraud or violent crime or theft. In other words those who work hard, and do a bit of extra overtime, always pay their bills, mortgages, tax, national insurance, who after being clobbered, end up being resented by their neighbours because they are fed up with paying for prop up the bottom, whilst keeping the top out of danger.I don't know why you take every complaint so personally, and hold up the banner for all benefit claimants mam35.. because there are bad apples in every barrel. And every sit com, soap opera, sketch show, stand up comedian, panel show, dysfunctional tv talk show, and News review program - are very quick to mock these stereotypes. What I am saying is that not everyone can be wrong.Since I have been unemployed (1 year last week), I have a bit of time on my hands, and there is nothing I have seen to dispel my views that a large proportion of those not in work and on benefits couldn't care less about finding a job. They are getting all the essential things with their money, Tattoos, Trainers (which aren't from Charity Shops, unless sports direct is a Charity Shop), I see them hanging around Cash Converters - fair enough, because when you are out of a job the most essential item you can have is an Xbox360, after all it runs on Free Electricity. So I can understand why these people need these things.Yes I am being sarcastic, because what I deem essential and would be struggling to afford if not for my meagre pension, and what is left of my gratuity, and my wife's wages (even now we still struggle), and what some of the hoody wearing tattooed people with status dogs I see every day in town deem essential, are completely different things.Nothing against you Mam35”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 12:34PM
“I do understand Chappy1884..I would like to put a few things straight about my opinion. I didnt say there isnt some that may chose not to look for work at times..but its not because they are getting all the money they need to live a life of riley, why they chose not to work I feel is almost a resignation to never being able to better themselves, which I find equally as sad as those desperately trying to find a job.As for the rich. I have said on previous posts regarding tax, I have nothing against those that have made their personal fortune, or whether they manage to find ways to lessen their tax bill. theat is prudence not avoidance. It is corporation tax that needs reformulating. Its crazy that we have big companies selling to UK consumers but not putting any of the profits back into the economy from whence it came..If our economy is to grow again, its a problem that needs sorting out and fast, we are still using a system that was created before the internet selling took off, and most companies became multi-national, its time for a rethink in the way we tax those selling to the consumers of each Country.”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 3:39PM
“Rubbish If you do not work why should you have any money at all? Before the benefit system kicked in men and women had to earn their cash and my word they did. People who do not work expect the same standard of hard workers. Though, work and earn the right to a car, holiday and better clothes and the rest.”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 3:54PM
“Interviews are the only way to gain employment. A person might have to undergo many interviews before he/she is successful, but one day they will get the opportunity to work. It is about being strong and positive and not giving-up. I find a few pot here very negative and if that is the outlook you have, then you will not go far. Most people have had periods of unemployment and many pointless job interviews, who hasn't? The fact of the matter is to keep moving forward and trying new ideas and ways to gain employment.”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 4:18PM
“I do remember what it was like some years ago, i dont look at the past with rose tinted glasses. I remember London, yes there were more jobs around, but I also remember the poverty all around, tramps wandering around, pickpockets, muggings, and yes, there was unemployment then too, but instead of being able to live in decency they lived in poverty...Would I want to see that back, I most certainly wouldnt. So what do we do when at last count there was around 500,000 possible job opportunities and 3.5million unemployed? As much as we would all like to see evryone in work, the jobs market also needs to improve,”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 6:49PM
“It's hard for me like many other's in their 60's finding new employment and having to use this Universal Match on the jobseekers website, But that's the way the dwp are heading by claiming all benefits online must be even harder for them who don't know how to start up a computer or use one.Early next year my internet contract comes to an end and I won't be engaging into a new contract with my ISP as I will not be able to afford it on my jsa as my other utilitity provider's will be shouting for the money and I can't see the government providing a free link to the internet for my jobsearching.”
Sunday, December 09 2012, 9:14PM
“There was an internet scheme in 2009-2010, but the coalition scrapped it I think. The only one I know of now is just a way to save money on it, rather then getting it free, not much help when you are on benefits im afraid :( BT basic is the only one I know (presuming its still around) the plan cuts the price of the phoneline to £4.50 per month instead of the usual £11-£15, im not sure what the plan includes, I think its free weekend calls. (you have to be in receipt of benefits to get this plan) and it still allows broadband, but of course that would be a seperate cost, you can get broadband quite cheap now. I know its probably not much help, but thought i would mention it :)”
Monday, December 10 2012, 9:18AM
“A very positive comment there Happy, you do make good points and if a first you do not succeed, try again and again...! Population problems are starting to show now, too many people and not enough jobs. I feel if all the job vacancies where filled there would be still over a million people unemployed! Also, the fact many jobs now have part-time hours and many only around 4 – 16 hours a week – who can live of that?”
Monday, December 10 2012, 9:47AM
“City_C10 - if the Jobs were filled - yes there may well be a million unemployed.But 1 million more tax payers, and those 1 million more tax payers will put more money in, and help ease the burden on public spending.Those 1 million people will make two important journeys a day - so they will be up out of bed putting the lights on, and using fuel to travel - or washing clothes more often, and all of this puts VAT into the economy as well as revenue into other businesses.And lets not forget, the extra million people will be empowered to start spending their new wages on things they couldn't afford before, and that will also help the economy and more than likely create further jobs in the retail sector as more workers = more demand.Some of them may use child care - so the may be more places created.Once new businesses or existing businesses expand to cater for the newly employed, they will be able to occupy premises, yet another revenue source for someone else.It all needs a spark, some sort of stimulus to get them into a job.I am fairly switched on, and I am finding it difficult, I have a level I want to achieve but even I am looking at a job that some turn their noses up at, and others can't be bothered to do, because of necessity. I would sooner pay my way than moan and make excuses.So Happy1900 has pretty much got it bang on for me.There are jobs out there, and there are people who can fill them.If people don't do something about it, then they'll end up being outsourced, or given to transient or migrant workers. I believe having a Canadian in charge of the bank of England may be a good move professionally for a global business, but it's a damning indictment of the talent we have in this country.”
Monday, December 10 2012, 11:38AM
“@Chappy as City10 said a lot of these jobs are NOT fulltime and this will mean little money and still government support aka the dole/benefits. You wrote this"Those 1 million people will make two important journeys a day - so they will be up out of bed putting the lights on, and using fuel to travel - or washing clothes more often, and all of this puts VAT into the economy as well as revenue into other businesses.And let's not forget, the extra million people will be empowered to start spending their new wages on things they couldn't afford before,"Err... How can you buy or indeed afford clothes, fuel, and the things they can't afford before? If you work for example 15 – 20 hour a week I somehow think you wouldn't be able to afford this new luxury lifestyle you seem to have dreamt up.”
Monday, December 10 2012, 11:50AM
“The unemployment figures have stayed pretty steady for many years (around the 3 million mark) The problem is with every job taken, another is lost..so the figures pretty much stay the same during recessions”
Tuesday, December 11 2012, 3:20PM
“I sure did state that Happy, there is a fight for part-time jobs and full-time ones. There is NO way a person can live without support on a job that is under roughly 30 hours a week, if not more. We all know that most of these jobs in this current market do not pay well. I have lost at least 2/3k a year doing the job I do now as the employer knows thousands of people out there willing to take my job right now! This pushes down the market and in turn the salary/wages in a bad labour market as we sadly know we are in.”
Wednesday, December 12 2012, 8:49PM
“Chappy do the maths if you feel people can live on PT jobs then you need to rethink a lot of things!”
Friday, December 14 2012, 2:01PM
“What is the min. wage now in Leicester?”
Friday, December 14 2012, 4:02PM
“The same as it is everywhere else!”
Friday, December 14 2012, 4:20PM
“It's £6.19 if you're over 21, £4.98 if you're aged 18-21 (stupid that it's different...) and about £3 something if you're aged 16-18.”
Friday, December 14 2012, 6:23PM
“@ Oh_come_on – This is not true at all! London rates are completely different to other cities (including Leicester)! See the link below:http://tinyurl.com/c77nukwThanks becki – I do agree the structure of the pay depending on ages is not fair at all.”
Friday, December 14 2012, 7:27PM
“City 10- you asked about the minimum wage not the living wage. The minimum wage is set nationally, as it states in your link.”
Friday, December 14 2012, 9:02PM
“It is confusing..but Oh_come_on is right, they are different things, the national minimum wage is required by law..the living wage is not compulsory but is rewarded by a kind of 'accredation' mark, a bit like the michelin stars given to restaurants..it shows that you are a reputable (or so its thought) employer willing to pay for your employees to have a decent standard of living :/”
Saturday, December 15 2012, 8:58AM
“I just sat back for a while read your comments.
Now for the inquiry..
Happy1900 - how do you know these million vacancies are all part time? - proof please.
Happy1900 - how can people afford this new luxury lifestyle? If you work up to 16 hours a week then you can still claim a certain level of benefit. Putting on the Lights, and travelling to work is hardly a luxury lifestyle. Staying at home all day using fuel to heat your house is always going to be more expensive than working. It's hardly a luxury. I am not saying they are all going to go out and buy Luxuries.
What I do understand from your comments are that you think everyone who tries to get a job will be worse off so why bother.. let the rest of the country carry on footing the bill,
let the number of empty shops increase, as we increase the burden on those in work who earn enough to support those out of work, then those currently in the middle will see their disposable income dwindle, (money they may have put into small businesses as customers),
and then we end up with more empty shops, more people out of work and a greater burden on the system.
Whilst people make excuse after excuse.. sometimes you have to lower your sights a bit, suffer with dignity, and rebuild, the trouble with a lot of people is they don't want to rebuild because some never built to start with. They want hand outs from those who have worked hard, and see that as sustainable.
Cityc10 - there is no way someone can survive without support on jobs under 30 hours a week.
My Sister in Law is a peripatetic music teacher in Wales, she works her own hours, (less than 30). She has 3 Daughters - she doesn't claim benefits, pays tax, and survives - she doesn't go on foreign holidays or drive a new car, but she isn't badly off.
It all comes down to attitude. If you are defeatist, you will be defeated,
If you are lazy or have a bad attitude, you will never progress.
If you are proactive - or realistic and have the presence of mind to make adjustments and prioritise then you will more than likely be able to make do or even consolidate and improve.
David JCB - I can do Maths - and until this post I never mentioned part time jobs,
There are always over a million Part time jobs available, the ones with 4 hours a week as C10 highlighted are classified as Student hours.
The Department of Employment classify
0-10 hours - as Relief employment - usually supplemental employment (top ups for those with other jobs - or income)
10-16 hours - as Part time supplemental - (pro rata and eligible for holiday allowance)
eligible for employment benefit subsidies.
16 -25 hours - if continuous over 5 days eligible minimum wage and retained employee status.
If negotiated hours or consultancy - regarded as retained
25 to 37 hours (up to 40) - full time employment.
over 37 hours is officially classified as overtime, but in certain roles (Forces) - overtime is time off in lieu.
The number of hours you work affects your rights. The minimum wages is not regional it's national. Contracted hours have to meet the minimum band for each classification.
Employers in regions with a higher cost of living - based on council tax banding,
and localise CPI, and RPI - would be foolish to offer the same rate of Living Allowance (Living Wage) - as those in a cheaper area, which is why it appears to fluctuate,
e.g. A worker in McDonalds on Oxford Street gets paid the same as a Traffic Warden in Hull.
(a hypothetical example before you start telling me it's wrong).
The upshot of all this is there is more to gain from being positive than making excuses and expecting others to carry the can. I would expect teachers & former teachers and parents to try to instil this into our children and school leavers. Or you can sit back, make excuses and be part of the problem. It's up to you. And I haven't called a single one of your comments rubbish.. because I don't need to, being rude proves nothing.”
Monday, December 17 2012, 12:47PM
“The post above missed out the 'living cost' and I can see it reads min. wage whereas, it should have read min. living wage i.e. what do people of Leicester feel is the lowest wage they can afford to live on for example £800 - £1200 per month etc?
I do not feel people on minimum wage could live on less than 30 hours per week Chappy, you could if you had a professional job (though it would be hard).”
Tuesday, December 18 2012, 8:37PM
“I would say you need at least £1000 after tax net pay for a very basic life in Leicester if you have children then a lot more unless you can claim a few extra quid elsewhere. I do not agree with Chappy here either, £180 quid a week to feed and pay bills good luck!!!”
Tuesday, December 18 2012, 8:47PM
“I am on £3.40 per hour :(”
Thursday, December 20 2012, 12:54PM
“That would be your age Rachel - This is all good work experience for you, remember that and you can build upon it in the future. The money will come in time and you have more of a chance to gain employment with work experience behind you.”
Thursday, December 20 2012, 9:43PM
“David - if you worked full time on minimum wage - you'd be eligible for top ups, allowances and various other schemes, which should push you over the 1000 mark.
You are right in that you would struggle on 180 quid a week - I am not disputing you on that one. It often seems like you routinely dispute what I post whether it's right or wrong. But not for the record I have agreed with you on this one.”
Friday, December 21 2012, 12:55PM
“I agree there Chappy about the minimum wage, however. To get a top-up as you stated that comes from the taxpayer and therefore is still support from the government which is sort of a benefit, though you can argue that the person is working ¾ full-time which I do not mind as much. Support people yes, but do not feed them! But the extra money is still coming from the taxpayer.I feel we have gone way off track now – The post is about job interviews and not about minimum wages, I myself have diversified of track so I feel we have had yet another good debate over the issue and now it is at its end.”
Saturday, December 22 2012, 12:07AM
“i dont know about part-time versus full-time, or what the figures are..all I know is there is a real lack of good quality opportunities. So many big coporations have appeared, supermarkets etc..When I was young, i just rememeber, CO-OP, BeJams, and Sainsburys, that was about it really :)..now theres so many, it puts so many of the little businesses out of business..and then there is good quality skilled workers, furniture etc, and industry in the North, all going to rack and ruin. Im not so sure advances made during the 80's privatisation and competition/enterprise years were all they were cracked up to be :/”
Saturday, December 22 2012, 11:39AM
“Many jobs are only part time and less than 20 hours a week if you search the directgov web sites and even the Leicester Mercury we can see this trend. In addition, many jobs are temporary and through agencies with no long-term security. Interviews for these roles are fixed or not, but might be less so as they are only for a short period. The whole labour market is up in the air, many things will need to be changed. Reform the benefit system and get apprenticeships back in the UK.”
Sunday, December 23 2012, 11:50AM
“How would 'reforming the benefit system' help in the current labour market situation? The government have already admitted their current 'work program' is a failure..the jobs simply are not there when the program ends, despite their insistance that its a 'lifestyle' choice to be on benefits. Its the economic system that needs an overhaul before we start stripping the benefit claimants of their money to live on. It hasnt moved with the times, and its desperately needed and long overdue..there has been a big surge in companies becoming international due to the progress of internet selling since the 90's..we really do need a better system for tracking and the paying of tax in the business world. Without some of the profits from consumers sales going back into the economy from where it came..the economy is surely going to continue to struggle, and when the economy struggles so does local business and the labour market..its a vicious circle that needs breaking.”
Monday, December 24 2012, 4:50PM
“by mam35Sunday, December 23 2012, 11:50AM"How would 'reforming the benefit system' help in the current labour market situation? Simple to stop people living on benefits and making them work!”
Something about your area you want to voice and debate with others? Let your community know and see how they feel.
Join the debate
Copyright © 2013 Local World. All Rights Reserved.