Blasted Employers Snubbing Long Term Jobless People!

katie_saver

I have actually found that being in a job is hindering me getting a better job as I am on one months notice and most people can start immediately if they are out of work...
Could work in your favour.

MissSarah1972

Brallaqueen wrote: »

If you were any good, you'd be employed by now wouldn't you? You wouldn't have had months, possibly even years of constant rejections, would you?

You'd have found a charity job to tide you over and trust me, I've worked with charities - they'll take anyone who can stand up with their eyes open and work for free.

Proof, pudding and all that.

Round my way there are 2 year waiting lists to work in a charity shop.

Daedalus

So if the bottom 1/3 of the unemployed in any one period don't get a job because the 2/3s are better than them, you know what you should do? Not be in the bottom 1/3.

Either you are trolling or you don't know how to present yourself well.

MissSarah1972

vroombroom wrote: »

Truego did they specifically say they turned you down because you have been out of work so long?

I haven't read your previous threads, so excuse my ignorance, but have you thought about doing volunteer work? or a work trial?

I was turned down for an inteerview when I had been out of work 6 weeks and the reason was 'you are not working' - the longer you cant get interviews the longer you are out of work. If you can get a job, ANY job then how are you meant to work.

Daedalus

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

I was turned down for an inteerview when I had been out of work 6 weeks and the reason was 'you are not working' - the longer you cant get interviews the longer you are out of work. If you can get a job, ANY job then how are you meant to work.

I do laugh at this idea. So you want people to be in work? But you want to schedule interview during normal working out with a few days notice? GENIUS.

Brallaqueen

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

Round my way there are 2 year waiting lists to work in a charity shop.

And I walked in to a red cross shop on saturday and came out with a position. Do-it suggests that there are plenty of opps in Liverpool, far more than in my area, and I refuse to believe that I just 'got lucky'

heretolearn_2

you might get a friendlier response if you stop abusing employers for the crime of giving a job to someone else instead of you. Picking candidate A over candidates B, C, D, E and F is called recruitment; it's not arrogant, or unfair, or choosy, or ridiculous.

Be furious about the destruction of industries. Be furious about the lack of opportunities in your area. Be furious about communities that have been left to wither.

But don't be furious at the employers who are still there providing work to local people.

How do you expect them to recruit? If you think they are wrong and evil to choose the person they think is best for the post, do you want them to just pick a name out of a hat? Have a local lottery for jobs?

No one denies you are making the effort. there simply aren't enough jobs to go round everyone who wants to work, so you have to go all out to win, and try different things, a new approach, be persistent, and accept rather than abuse what you cannot control.

I actually do agree with the point that it's strange and unfair to refuse unemployed candidates - in my experience it's job agencies that are worst for this rather than employers directly. We've recruited plenty of people who have been out of work for a while, for all sorts of reasons. We don't assume it's because they are no good. Hell, we've been there ourselves!
On this last job, in the civil service a checkable work history is a normal requirement for many departments, it's part of the security etc checks, and it is what it is. No point wasting energy on what you can't change.

1940sGal

Truegho, I remember you saying on another post that you would only re-locate if you could get accommodation that wasn't shared. Why is this? I know shared isn't perfect, who goes in for it for the long term? Most see it as a temp thing until they can get a place of their own.

If you're not willing to even consider shared accommodation to get a job elsewhere, I'd suggest complaining a little less about your circumstances as it is you who is holding yourself back somewhat.

MissSarah1972

Daedalus wrote: »

I do laugh at this idea. So you want people to be in work? But you want to schedule interview during normal working out with a few days notice? GENIUS.

Who wants people to be in work? I am out of work.

Yes I have it in writing from companies and agencies they want people who are working.

Truegho

Hi heretolearn. Thank you for your reply to my post. It was much appreciated, and you made some really good points there, all of which I have taken on board.

I realise that I may come across at times as being somewhat vehement about employers, but the thing is, when you get knockec back, time and time again - often for the most trivial of reasons - it is very difficult to repress any anger and bitterness you might be feeling. If it had been, say, just a few rejections here and there, then obviously I wouldn't have become so indignant. But unfortunately, as I have said, I have had that many that sometimes I just HAVE to give vent to my feelings. I am very sorry, but that is just the way my long-term unemployment has made me feel.

Yes, you are right when you say that often it is agencies who are notorious for shunning you if you have been out of work for some time. In fact, I think they are more guilty of this than most employers are. To be honest, despite registering with numerous agencies, I have never really found them to be of much use to me in regard to finding me permanent employment; instead, it has invariably been a case of just a few temp jobs here and there, and then back on the rock 'n' roll again. I have had much better luck applying directly to employers myself, as this is how I have managed to get most of my jobs in the past.

It is very good to know that you are one of the people who DO empathise with my plight. It is a great shame that not all those who post on here - the minority, thankfully - share the sensible, practical views of people like us.

heretolearn wrote: »

you might get a friendlier response if you stop abusing employers for the crime of giving a job to someone else instead of you. Picking candidate A over candidates B, C, D, E and F is called recruitment; it's not arrogant, or unfair, or choosy, or ridiculous.

Be furious about the destruction of industries. Be furious about the lack of opportunities in your area. Be furious about communities that have been left to wither.

But don't be furious at the employers who are still there providing work to local people.

How do you expect them to recruit? If you think they are wrong and evil to choose the person they think is best for the post, do you want them to just pick a name out of a hat? Have a local lottery for jobs?

No one denies you are making the effort. there simply aren't enough jobs to go round everyone who wants to work, so you have to go all out to win, and try different things, a new approach, be persistent, and accept rather than abuse what you cannot control.

I actually do agree with the point that it's strange and unfair to refuse unemployed candidates - in my experience it's job agencies that are worst for this rather than employers directly. We've recruited plenty of people who have been out of work for a while, for all sorts of reasons. We don't assume it's because they are no good. Hell, we've been there ourselves!
On this last job, in the civil service a checkable work history is a normal requirement for many departments, it's part of the security etc checks, and it is what it is. No point wasting energy on what you can't change.