Why bother anymore!

wontfallforit

dpassmore wrote: »

Where's the 'respect' to those who have been out of work for a prolonged period in a sweeping statement like that?

Firstly, I have never been involved in hiring and firing, and probably never will! It was an armchair comment, so methinks you might have taken it much more seriously - and read much deeper into it - than intended :-/

Also, you did a nice job of failing to account for the fact that I'd highlighted in bold that many persons unemployed more than 6 months are indeed rather employable...

What a load of rubbish. Are you suggesting that people who have been made redundant through no fault of their own would lose their 'working life mentality' if they were unable to find work within six months?

Of course not. You're putting words in my mouth, because I did not say that at all, and I do not believe it to be true in all circumstances, whatsoever. I did not suggest that one would 'lose' the so-called working life mentality (after all, it can be retained through sheer determination, and some activities that preserve routine in one's daily life). However, some people will lose that mentality, whereas some won't.

What if a 'freshly redundant' person was useless, but had a current 'working life mentality' - would you still employ him rather than someone who was conscientious, hard working and was good at his job but had been out of work for over six months? That is just illogical to me.

Please elaborate on your interpretation of 'working life mentality' and what your assertion is based on.

Again, you've done a good job of reading in between the lines...when there was no subtext to be read at all. I think I'd have the good sense to choose the right person for the job (though please see my comments about not being a recruitment professional, and my being torn between a cash incentive for hiring a LTU person, and choosing the potential benefits of a person who came out of work, say, 2 weeks ago).

The bottom line is that some people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not as 'employable' as persons who are able to find jobs in less than 6 months. Whereas some most certainly are as employable and could do as good a job - if not better - than those who had worked more recently.

Cash incentives - and indeed one's length of period spent out of work - should not necessarily be a deciding factor in their job application success (or lack thereof), but the fact remains that both of these factors do come into play quite often - rightly or wrongly.

[Comically and exaggeratedly highlighted in bold and red lest you once again accuse me of sweeping statements that I didn't make in the first place.]

jkc_2

hard luck bf hope you find something better soon. I feel sorry for the person she takes on although they must be aware just from that question that the contract will only be for 6 months until the benefits run out.

wuckfit

It seems that the system is stacked against those who want to work.
There is no benefit for an employer to take on someone who has been unemployed for less than six months. Someone who has been made redundant, with a mortgage gets very little help, whereas those with rent seem to get it all paid ad-infinitum Having worked hard for a number of years, I get 6 months contributions based JSA, then that's my lot. As every day goes by, that's one more day since I last worked, and one more day out of the working life mentality orkeeping in a working life routine - keeping regular hours and getting out of the way of a 9-5 job with set lunch breaks and rest breaks. Someone who's been out of work may be viewed, however unfairly, by an employer as being somewhat rusty in terms of getting up to speed with the job, and generally fitting in to a new work environment. However once I've spent 6 months not working, employers suddenly get a financial incentive to take on someone who's been out of the workplace for a long time.

This is primarly geared as a carrot to take on a 'career unemployed' person, or in plain terms someone who actually doesn't want to work, and we've all seen them. The problem with this, and the system, is that those people who are being targetted actually very skilled at claiming maxium benefits; when it's all totalled up (and especially if they've managed to get a disibility claim (let me make it clear that I've no objection to someone with a genuine claim getting all the financial help available to them)), they'd have to be earning around £25k+ a year to stand still, and most of the 'hardcore' unemployed have no skills or qualifications, and in most cases the maxium they could legitimately earn is minimum wage, which is just over £12k full time. So where is the incentive for them to get a job? Getting rent, council-tax etc all paid.
Additionally, the mindset in some cases - if you show someone a job that earns, say, £80 per week more than they're currently getting on benefits, they're of the opinion that £80 per week for a 40 hour week is working for £2/hr, rather than the true wage figure.

All this leaves those who are recently-unemployed caught in the cross-fire. While financial incentives are supposed to redress the balance towards making it easier for the long term unemployed to find employment all it does is create a barrier for genuine jobseekers who've been unemployed for a short time.

wontfallforit

wuckfit wrote: »

It seems that the system is stacked against those who want to work.
There is no benefit for an employer to take on someone who has been unemployed for less than six months. Someone who has been made redundant, with a mortgage gets very little help, whereas those with rent seem to get it all paid ad-infinitum Having worked hard for a number of years, I get 6 months contributions based JSA, then that's my lot. As every day goes by, that's one more day since I last worked, and one more day out of the working life mentality orkeeping in a working life routine - keeping regular hours and getting out of the way of a 9-5 job with set lunch breaks and rest breaks. Someone who's been out of work may be viewed, however unfairly, by an employer as being somewhat rusty in terms of getting up to speed with the job, and generally fitting in to a new work environment. However once I've spent 6 months not working, employers suddenly get a financial incentive to take on someone who's been out of the workplace for a long time.

This is primarly geared as a carrot to take on a 'career unemployed' person, or in plain terms someone who actually doesn't want to work, and we've all seen them. The problem with this, and the system, is that those people who are being targetted actually very skilled at claiming maxium benefits; when it's all totalled up (and especially if they've managed to get a disibility claim (let me make it clear that I've no objection to someone with a genuine claim getting all the financial help available to them)), they'd have to be earning around £25k+ a year to stand still, and most of the 'hardcore' unemployed have no skills or qualifications, and in most cases the maxium they could legitimately earn is minimum wage, which is just over £12k full time. So where is the incentive for them to get a job? Getting rent, council-tax etc all paid.
Additionally, the mindset in some cases - if you show someone a job that earns, say, £80 per week more than they're currently getting on benefits, they're of the opinion that £80 per week for a 40 hour week is working for £2/hr, rather than the true wage figure.

All this leaves those who are recently-unemployed caught in the cross-fire. While financial incentives are supposed to redress the balance towards making it easier for the long term unemployed to find employment all it does is create a barrier for genuine jobseekers who've been unemployed for a short time.

Though I'm fortunate enough to have never experienced the above, these are my thoughts exactly. Good post.

jfdi

The Employer Subsidy - the £1000 paid in 2 x £500 - is not for jobs expected to last under 6 months (or under 16hpw); so the Employer wouldn't've got it anyway. Sounds like they'd got a bit mixed up - why not call them back and explain (if the job's still going) - you might succeed after all!?

jkc_2

I quite like the idea that employers get benefits to employ folk that have been unemployed for 6 months because it gives folk who may be at a disadvantage in the job market a shot and even though its only for 6 months its something to put on a cv. although i agree that it excludes some job seekers too.

CHARDONNAY_3

I think this scheme is a bad idea, not because I don't qualify ( I will, in a couple of weeks time) but because I find it offensive that I'm considered such a burden at the 6 months unemployed stage, that an employer would have to be paid to take me on.

dickydonkin

wontfallforit wrote: »

Again, you've done a good job of reading in between the lines...

That's what occurs when sweeping statements are made.

The bottom line is that some people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not as 'employable' as persons who are able to find jobs in less than 6 months. Whereas some most certainly are as employable and could do as good a job - if not better - than those who had worked more recently.

Bit of a daft statement really because those who have found work within 6 months would not be looking for employment anyway!

It is possible that some 'long term' unemployed have not been able to get work because they had previously been in a 'comfort zone' position and may just not be up to scratch in the real world (not because they have lost their 'working life mentality - but because they may not have had any in the first instance!').

From another perspective, what if a highly qualified person who has a niche profession was made redundant? Obviously, such positions would only be available infrequently - maybe twice a year? Are you suggesting that such a person should not persevere in a position of his/her choice after 6 months? Would he also not be as employable even if he had been waiting for a preferred position for a year or so?

Another factor is that we have been in recession for a prolonged period and many people have become victims of the downturn which makes jobseeking (even for the most menial roles) more difficult which makes your comments even more crass. The reality is that the jobs are just not there.

Is your statement above based on facts or just a personal perception?

As you stated, you are not a recruitment professional, but you seem to be able to offer some insight into apparent recruiting preferences.

DCFC79

Its getting a bit boring now, been looking for months for another job and not come up with a sausage

jimbms

I know it doesn't help much but for me it seems the job may have only been decided on because of the benifits gained if taking a long term unemployed on, so it may not have lasted anyway. From my view I will always give preference in an interview to someone who has take a crap job with low pay to keep self respect and money coming in above someone who has signed on and wont take low jobs because they think they are beneath them.