Taking the micky

Daedalus

TrickyWicky wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, when was that then? - Sounds to me like it was at least the 1980's. By your own admission, you had no debts (presumably that includes rent, council tax etc - which most of us DO have to pay) so how would you recommend the average person WITH debts that have to be paid survive like that then?

If you had 5 kids then that may also mean you had a partner out working to help too. It's all very well slating other people and boasting about how well you've done when you have financial support from a partner, family, paid off house etc but you're forgetting that not everyone is not able to be in that situation. Running them down just condemns them even more.

So you don't get help with rent and CT if you are on a low income? Work will almost always pay more than benefits. Might be a few jobs where travel costs makes it otherwise.

princessdon

TrickyWicky wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, when was that then? - Sounds to me like it was at least the 1980's. By your own admission, you had no debts (presumably that includes rent, council tax etc - which most of us DO have to pay) so how would you recommend the average person WITH debts that have to be paid survive like that then?

If you had 5 kids then that may also mean you had a partner out working to help too. It's all very well slating other people and boasting about how well you've done when you have financial support from a partner, family, paid off house etc but you're forgetting that not everyone is not able to be in that situation. Running them down just condemns them even more.

Eek I am not that old, and yes I do have a partner, but tahe fact remains I had a choice to work for £1.21 an hour (after childcare) or give up work.

The experience gained from working allows progression, skills, and commands higher salaries.

To dismiss someone working as staples in the way OP did is unfair and detremental. Positive attitude, those than can will often succeed.

They need to look at all aspects, and wage is ONE part. The wider picture is more than wage. My old job share was a volunteer with zero quals and is on the same wage as myself and bloody good at it. She did so by working unpaid, getting experience and working up from the very ground.

Saying people in Staples lied to get a job whilst you are unemplyed doesn't do you favours.

princessdon

BTW I say that because I like the poster, they have a lot to give, but they do need to get over certain personal hurdles and show they best side over their worst.

Eg on this thread a lot of their negativity shows, on other threads they show a huge amount of postiive contributions and have a lot to offer.

They need to shrug off some chips they have, as they CAN and will do well if they are given the opportunity.

At the moment some of their negativity will stop their strengths from being shown.

imatt

sniggings wrote: »

Is it just me but is it really nessesary for a job application to have 92 multi choice questions to answer to apply for a crappy min wage job!

Just applied for a job at Staples and had to answer daft questions like, if another store in the group did better than our store would I be A, happy for them B very upset we didn't beat them or C, glad we at least did better than average :eek: I was stuck as there wasn't a "couldn't give a !!!! what your daft targets are, I'm on min wage, pay me better and I might start to care" option.

And loads more like that, it was clear what they wanted you to say, I ended up just clicking random answers.

Could be that it's a badly written application. Does it appear long winded?

We are told that a CV should be two A4 pages max. However, should it not work both ways? Surely it is possible to get the relevent info without as any questions?

That said, perhaps some questions may not need filling in. E.g. Q6 may be "Have you worked at Bloggs and Co. before? If yes, skip to Q9.

P.S. I HAVE actually worked for Staples in the past.

TrickyWicky

princessdon wrote: »

Eek I am not that old, and yes I do have a partner, but tahe fact remains I had a choice to work for £1.21 an hour (after childcare) or give up work.

Right so you can't really slate those who are in a worse position than you then for being down about it can you. By your own admission you have a partner to help you out and you're actually earning MORE than your quoted £1.21 per hour because you're paying child care costs from it too.

You're moral arguement of working for £1.21 an hour is a bit weak. I won't say its wrong because it's clearly not however you're suggesting that someone else should be able to do so when you have no idea of their personal circumstances etc.

I'm sorry but while I know you mean well, jumping in, and making off the cuff remarks about being to work for peanuts in your situation when others may be in a far worse situation is actually very judgemental and harsh.

sniggings

imatt wrote: »

Could be that it's a badly written application. Does it appear long winded?

We are told that a CV should be two A4 pages max. However, should it not work both ways? Surely it is possible to get the relevent info without as any questions?

That said, perhaps some questions may not need filling in. E.g. Q6 may be "Have you worked at Bloggs and Co. before? If yes, skip to Q9.

P.S. I HAVE actually worked for Staples in the past.

Yes all questions needed to be answered it was an online application, 92 questions in total,

SingleSue

princessdon wrote: »

Eek I am not that old, and yes I do have a partner, but tahe fact remains I had a choice to work for £1.21 an hour (after childcare) or give up work.

The experience gained from working allows progression, skills, and commands higher salaries.

To dismiss someone working as staples in the way OP did is unfair and detremental. Positive attitude, those than can will often succeed.

They need to look at all aspects, and wage is ONE part. The wider picture is more than wage. My old job share was a volunteer with zero quals and is on the same wage as myself and bloody good at it. She did so by working unpaid, getting experience and working up from the very ground.

Saying people in Staples lied to get a job whilst you are unemplyed doesn't do you favours.

When I went back to work when youngest was very young, I was quite literally working for nothing, in fact, with my wages, we were around £20 a week worse off after tax credits reductions, loss of carers allowance and transport costs were taken into account!

But...and it is a huge, massive but, it gave me my self esteem back, kept me sane and gave me some social life and a break away from being a carer. It wasn't long though before we started to go into positive money as I moved up the ranks and by the time I had to leave (me and hubby split meaning no childcare available - disabled children, long story), we were massively into positive money territory.

TrickyWicky

SingleSue wrote: »

But...and it is a huge, massive but, it gave me my self esteem back, kept me sane and gave me some social life

You see thats where there is often a big difference between men and women. Women see the positive in working for peanuts (god only knows how you do so) where as men will often see the negative side of it.

I know many people won't like me for saying that but I'm just speaking the truth.

sniggings

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You see thats where there is often a big difference between men and women. Women see the positive in working for peanuts (god only knows how you do so) where as men will often see the negative side of it.

I know many people won't like me for saying that but I'm just speaking the truth.

maybe buying all the drinks has something to do with the difference

TrickyWicky

I wouldn't know, even when I'm in full time employment I never seem to be able to afford a round