There are plenty of jobs out there!

LadyMissA

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Its not advice the unemployed need, or help with C.V s or being patronized by the working.Its jobs plain and simple.

Or not to be discriminated against due to being out of work!

falko89

LadyMissA wrote: »

Or not to be discriminated against due to being out of work!

Yeah that's another good point.

falko89

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Some very strange "advice" on here!.
Its only really jobs which can help the unemployed, not everybody retraining when its often beyond the finances and circumstances of the individuals concerned. If people have a family,a mortgage and committments when in work then its very difficult to save for retraining which often costs thousands when the bills need paying. Can you imagine, "No dear Im not paying the gas and council tax this quarter instead Im saving for retraining for when I get laid off". Ridicoulous!
Its not advice the unemployed need, or help with C.V s or being patronized by the working.Its jobs plain and simple.

Exactly. When I was working things where as tough as they are now, living pay check to pay check, there never was any spare cash.

Derivative

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

If people have a family,a mortgage and committments when in work then its very difficult to save for retraining which often costs thousands when the bills need paying.

Of course it is.

I suppose my point is that the more commitments you have, the harder it is to retrain, to relocate, to find a job that works around family life, and many others.

Those commitments you take on are barriers to employment, even if they don't seem like it at the time. It's like the old saying "a dog is for life, not just for Christmas".

Its not advice the unemployed need, or help with C.V s or being patronized by the working.Its jobs plain and simple.

Of course - the situation we are currently in, is one in which there are not enough jobs available for all. The only thing an unemployed individual can do is to either become self employed, or differentiate themselves from the thousands of other applicants.

Saying "there aren't enough jobs" is not really very productive - it's simply stating the obvious. Neither I nor you can do much about it at present.

I don't see how giving advice on how to present yourself better than other applicants is a bad thing. It's like being in a race against ten other sprinters - you can't all win, and the likelihood is that the one who trained hardest is going to make it.

falko89 wrote:

Exactly. When I was working things where as tough as they are now, living pay check to pay check, there never was any spare cash.

As earlier, I suppose that's the issue of commitments. It costs me roughly £7-8k a year to live. A full time NMW job would give me enough to save thousands a year. There are many people like me who can outbid you and that makes it difficult for you to find a job.

Sad state of affairs yes, but the reality of a time in which labour outstrips requirements.

LadyMissA wrote:

Or not to be discriminated against due to being out of work!

I agree, but this is simply a natural human tendency. I believe it is well studied, but I can't recall the name right now.

People tend to like successful people more.

If you're betting on the horses and you expect an equal payoff for all (analogy with an equal wage for an equal job done), which do you go for, the underdog, or the one that's consistently performed?

Same thing with footballers - if you want a good squad, you go for the guy who's scored 100 goals in the last year. The other guy might have great potential, but it's natural to go for the proven track record.

I'm not sure much can really be done about this - you could prevent employers from asking for work history, but an interview would quickly tease it out of you.

LadyMissA

Derivative wrote: »

People tend to like successful people more.

If you're betting on the horses and you expect an equal payoff for all (analogy with an equal wage for an equal job done), which do you go for, the underdog, or the one that's consistently performed?

Same thing with footballers - if you want a good squad, you go for the guy who's scored 100 goals in the last year. The other guy might have great potential, but it's natural to go for the proven track record.

I'm not sure much can really be done about this - you could prevent employers from asking for work history, but an interview would quickly tease it out of you.

'People tend to like successful people more.'

LOL

I was VERY successful at my job! I think you will find it was my last company that weren't very succesful and are continuing to lose money and I have great joy knowing that!

You are saying people who have been made redundant are the UNDER performers, which is so not true! You can underperform and still keep your job, you know.

You also have said 'I don't see how giving advice on how to present yourself better than other applicants is a bad thing.'

Have you heard of being 'over qualified'?

Derivative

LadyMissA wrote: »

'People tend to like successful people more.'

LOL

I was VERY successful at my job! I think you will find it was my last company that weren't very succesful and are continuing to lose money and I have great joy knowing that!

You are saying people who have been made redundant are the UNDER performers, which is so not true! You can underperform and still keep your job, you know.

I'm not sure why you seem so offended at my last post.
You've stated yourself that there is a bias against the unemployed. I would extend that to say it is especially prominent against the long-term unemployed.

Whether or not we call it 'success bias' or not is academic. It's something that is part of human nature. If I want a footballer, I'd rather have someone who has played in the recent past than someone out of practice for years. YMMV.

You also have said 'I don't see how giving advice on how to present yourself better than other applicants is a bad thing.'

Have you heard of being 'over qualified'?

Indeed I have. Presenting yourself better than other applicants does not necessarily mean listing more job experience or a higher level of qualification. It can just as well mean tailoring yourself to the role.

Do you wish to tell me that there is absolutely no worth in trying to improve your application? Zero? That someone who has no grasp of how to write a cover letter has the same chance of getting the job as you? Of course they bloody don't. Whether they have more or less is a different issue and will depend on the job in question, but it's blatantly obvious that it makes an impact.

LisaB85

falko89 wrote: »

I would of thought like this until I was made redundant, It's shocking the lack of jobs, In January I applied for all the jobs I could that have been floating around for a while but its March this week and I've not applied for anything since, I'm at the stage where I am on the verge of giving up, I can't see away out, My only chance is working for myself.

February has been terrible for jobs! In January/1st week of Feb I applied for about 50 jobs and was having plenty of interviews but the last couple of weeks I have probably found 2 jobs that I can apply for, 1 is only 16 hours and the other seasonal.

LadyMissA

Derivative wrote: »

I'm not sure why you seem so offended at my last post.
You've stated yourself that there is a bias against the unemployed. I would extend that to say it is especially prominent against the long-term unemployed.

Whether or not we call it 'success bias' or not is academic. It's something that is part of human nature. If I want a footballer, I'd rather have someone who has played in the recent past than someone out of practice for years. YMMV.



Indeed I have. Presenting yourself better than other applicants does not necessarily mean listing more job experience or a higher level of qualification. It can just as well mean tailoring yourself to the role.

Women on maternity leave haven't worked for a year yet they go back to work - in their last role! they aren't deemed to be not worth it.

To compare it to a footballer is plain stupid. You'd want a 4th divison footballer over say Beckham who hasn't played in the UK for a number or years? Just beacuse you are not 'playing' doesn't make you a bad player and just because you are doesn't mean you are the best. Just look at Gerrad today, couldn't even get a penalty against a team in the below division! LOL

Derivative

LadyMissA wrote: »

Women on maternity leave haven't worked for a year yet they go back to work - in their last role! they aren't deemed to be not worth it.

To compare it to a footballer is plain stupid. You'd want a 4th divison footballer over say Beckham who hasn't played in the UK for a number or years? Just beacuse you are not 'playing' doesn't make you a bad player and just because you are doesn't mean you are the best. Just look at Gerrad today, couldn't even get a penalty against a team in the below division! LOL

I think that you are creating a strawman here.
Of course employment status is not the only factor.

What I am saying is that it contributes. If you have a 20 year history that you can document well and show how you made a real difference then a year of unemployment will look a bit odd, but shouldn't be a huge issue.

But if you have 20 years of part time jobs here and there mixed with long void periods, it starts to look much more iffy.

Beckham and the 4th division footballer is a bad example because there we are talking about a person who almost everyone in the world knows. I don't even have to do any research to know Beckham is a world class footballer.

If we extend the analogy a bit and you asked me about say, 2nd division vs 4th division, it becomes a lot more fuzzy. When hundreds of people are applying for a role, it takes a lot of manpower to thoroughly look over the history of people involved. So employment status becomes another one of those easy factors that can be used.

It's like how many jobs nowadays require a 2.1 degree, even when the subject studied has almost no relevance to the job position. On the face of things this is a rather nonsensical measure to use. But it is used, even if only as a simple way to whittle down numbers of applicants to a more manageable level.

I don't necessarily agree with the way job positions are filled nowadays. But arguing on the forum doesn't really achieve much IMO. It's about cracking on with things, realising the weaknesses you have, and at least trying to solve them. I don't feel that arguing with people helps, it should be about positive thinking and trying to think of ways out of a problem.

Remember that we're all in the same position - even those in work are often unaware they are on a tightrope and management could be waiting for a good opportunity to cut them.

LadyMissA

Derivative wrote: »

I think that you are creating a strawman here.
Of course employment status is not the only factor.

What I am saying is that it contributes. If you have a 20 year history that you can document well and show how you made a real difference then a year of unemployment will look a bit odd, but shouldn't be a huge issue.

IF you have ANY idea what it like out there now you would not say that a year out of work looks odd!! I know people IN WORK who have been looking for a new job for 2 years now and with not one interview and we are talking fully qualified accountants!

night