Way out of job interview through the jobcentre?

PARIS_5000

morganedge wrote: »

not yet.
I was absolutely aweful. All of my previous jobs have never really required such a formal interview. I've had jobs through agencies where no interview at all was required. The only actual job interviews i've had before were very relaxed where they looked at my CV for a few minutes, told me about the job and that was it! I was totally unprepared. They were asking me all kinds of questions encouraging me to really 'sell myself'. It was cringewrorthy. I literally had nothing to say. It was so uncomfortable and awkward. Long silences. I can laugh about it now but for them 20 minutes it was brutal.

As bad as I was, the lady mentioned that 2 other candidates from the jobcentre hadn't bothered to turn up or even let them know that they weren't coming which actually made me look good! lol. I think they'll tell me next week.
Despite the negative feedback I've had on this thread, most people i've spoken too in the real world are on my side. Im not gonna take the job whatever happens. There is a risk of them stopping my benefits if I turn it down, but having spoken to other people who have been in this situation and done the same, it is terribly unlikely. Especially considering that my jobseekers agreement states an overall travelling time of 1 hour and this job would take me over 1hr and a half just to get there!

In fact, I read today that that fact alone guarantees that I will be fine and within my rights to turn the job down. We'll see

I hope that it works out for you. Have you arrange anymore interviews ?

morganedge

PARIS_5000 wrote: »

I hope that it works out for you. Have you arrange anymore interviews ?

I had one at the end of last month that went much better (ws just a normal interview like im used too and not an audition for 'the apprentice' like the one this week! lol) Not heard anything yet but they said it wouldln't be until early this month.

I've also quite likely got some Christmas work lined up for a month or so. Not very nice work but quite near to my house.

Still hoping to find something before that though

PARIS_5000

You are looking for work so you will find something very soon.

devilivus

morganedge wrote: »

was just a normal interview like im used too and not an audition for 'the apprentice' like the one this week!

lol :d . . .

morganedge

PARIS_5000 wrote: »

You are looking for work so you will find something very soon.

Yeah, but I thought that about a month ago! literally hundreds of applications dont even get a reply.

Like I say, I've very likely got some temporary position starting in a month or so which will last for about 1.5 months, but then end.
I've worked there (warehouse near me) for a few Christmas' so its quite likely they'll want me again. After that, ill be back on the hunt I guess.

Whats your situation? You working?

PARIS_5000

morganedge wrote: »

Yeah, but I thought that about a month ago! literally hundreds of applications dont even get a reply.

Like I say, I've very likely got some temporary position starting in a month or so which will last for about 1.5 months, but then end.
I've worked there (warehouse near me) for a few Christmas' so its quite likely they'll want me again. After that, ill be back on the hunt I guess.

Whats your situation? You working?

Yes I work in a office its okay but I have just graduated so looking for a graduate job

MyUserName_4

morganedge wrote: »

Certainly not my intentions!
In fact, i've not responded to lots of the abuse, lol. I simply ignored it. I also haven't posted in this thread at all for the last few pages. Hardly feeding the flames, am I? I asked a question. The genuine advice was that I, unfortunately, had to attend the interview. That's it. Done. It wasn't me who took the topic through a side street.

Some people just dont share the same opinions as me. That's fine. Others who have 'thanked me' seem to agree. But the sanctimonious platitudes being spewed are comical.

I don't think some of the posters here are being fair on you at all. IMO, you don't come across as a "scrounger", you just don't want the particular job that you were called to an interview for. I would look at this another way, why should you get a job that you clearly don't want, where your input and work ethic on the job would probably be affected by your apathy for it? The job should go, instead, to someone who really wants it, to someone who has a passion for doing the job well. Why should you take that opportunity away from someone else, just because a few people see all claimants as "scroungers"?

Some of the laziest, incompetent, worthless people I have ever met, have jobs. These people should stay at home, where their apathy, incompetence and shirker attitude doesn't get in the way of those who work for pleasure. No-one becomes a hero just because they go out and work in a job they hate. Far from it. Where's your pride and passion for what you do?

There are certain people who acknowledge that they are unemployable and these people make a career out of living on benefits. BTW, I don't think the OP is one of them. But who on earth gave anyone the right to try to force these useless people onto a poor unsuspecting employer?

There is another side of the coin which is much more important and it relates to whether or not these !!!!less people should be allowed to have children. Now that really IS a tragedy. How many lives are being ruined (children) because unemployable people, now see having children as a guarantee to benefits?

I don't want to see unemployable people in the work force, but I do want to see an end to more children being trapped in poverty because of their !!!!less parents. This problem should be tackled head on, we should accept that there are some people who are too useless to work. Perhaps these people should be guaranteed a meagre form of support for life, in return for not having children, as soon as they have children, they should be forced to go out to work. If they accept the lifetime on benefits for not having children, then they will eventually die out and no children would be harmed in the process. Radical enough?

Good luck in your job search OP!

shikoku

MyUserName wrote: »

There is another side of the coin which is much more important and it relates to whether or not these !!!!less people should be allowed to have children. Now that really IS a tragedy. How many lives are being ruined (children) because unemployable people, now see having children as a guarantee to benefits?

I don't want to see unemployable people in the work force, but I do want to see an end to more children being trapped in poverty because of their !!!!less parents. This problem should be tackled head on, we should accept that there are some people who are too useless to work. Perhaps these people should be guaranteed a meagre form of support for life, in return for not having children, as soon as they have children, they should be forced to go out to work. If they accept the lifetime on benefits for not having children, then they will eventually die out and no children would be harmed in the process. Radical enough?

Shame on you!

That's all I have to say about your proposed policy of eugenics.

Arg

Where did the helpful post go detailing the reason for turning down job inteviews?
For example religous reasons,working in abattiors,health grounds etc.

Gleeful

Arg wrote: »

Where did the helpful post go detailing the reason for turning down job inteviews?
For example religous reasons,working in abattiors,health grounds etc.

The user got banned