There goes my job... seriously DEPRESSED

andygb

EddieUK wrote: »

:T

So I guess I'll get no sound advice here then, better off asking somewhere else I see...

I say that if it all goes wrong then I've had enough of trying and I'll just give up on trying to find stability in life... I might as well just get in with my old mates and do what they're doing...

And then all of a sudden that makes me a career criminal and I deserve bad things to happen to my family?

Who are you people?

Eddie, you have more than just hinted, that you want things the easy way, you want all the nice things in life but you don't want to work hard for them.
How about studying for something, getting a qualification?
You are only 23, so how about doing what the rest of us have done - start at the bottom, get experience and move up.

And you know what? A lot of us, the majority of honest people can appreciate a £40K car, without thinking nasty things about the owner.

But then, a lot of us have'nt got a big chip on our shoulder.

sulphate

EddieUK wrote: »

How? I've tried not to argue here... despite being on the receiving end of a shitload of uncalled-for judgement because I said I might F everything off and join in with my friends from the past...

Regardless of the fact that I've done nothing for the past 10 years besides keep myself on the straight and narrow and try to make a decent life for myself...

So tell me, in the judgmental provocative way that you worded it... how are tesco staff contributing more to society than I am?

Enlighten me... because they certainly don't wake up at 4:30 to deliver your bills and bank statements, and they certainly didn't donate nearly half of their jobseekers allowance to the RSPCA when they were unemployed I'm pretty sure of that, but unfortunately that's all I had the means to do in terms of contribution to society.. how do tesco staff do more than me? stack bread on shelves so that you can buy it? oh yeah I see... how could I ever dream of doing society such a service.. I'll never be as much as an outstanding citizen as they are.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Because they are paying tax, therefore contributing to the economy. That's all. On a side note, if you don't understand that shelf stackers provide an important service......?

You are unemployed right now, correct? So you are not yet required to wake at 4.30am to go to work. Correct me if I'm wrong - I was under the impression you spend your time at the gym or on your computer on YouTube or job seeking.

EddieUK

sulphate wrote: »

You are unemployed right now, correct?

Incorrect.


Yes I do wake up a 4:30am to deliver mail, and yes I do pay tax.

So now what do you have to say about claiming shelf stackers contribute more to society than I do...?

This thread is not hypothetical... I've started my job, I'm waiting for my background check to come back, and I'm panicking because of the confusing circumstances surrounding my background check.. filling out a basic disclosure scotland form, the women in the induction talking about "standard CRB check", me having to sign a new blank form , ect etc, that is what this thread is about.

Poppie68

Being a postal worker does'nt make you any better than a tesco shelf stacker or street sweeper, they are all honest jobs that afford people mortgages, cars, holidays etc.
You seem to want alot in life which is a good thing but you also seem to want it here and now and if you don't get it you can join the ranks of the £40K car driving 'heros' who have made their livings through the suffering of others.
I hate with a passion thieves etc who pour misery on other people through their own greed. So i really do hope you do get employment with the postal service and your life stays on the straight and narrow otherwise you will be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life even when you are a guest of her majesty.

uknick

Eddie

Why not call them to ask what exactly she meant? If it is the check that calls for all convictions, then is it worth explaining what has happened?

I know honesty is not always the best policy in life, but if you think you will be stuffed for saying nothing, an honest approach now might help.

Of course it might dump you in the smelly stuff, as I've found out in the past.

With regard to some of the posts here attacking you, I wouldn't put too much stock in them (easy for me to say I know). You seem to be very down but, from what I read you really don't want to follow the dark side. If that was the case, I'm sure you would have done so some time ago.

EddieUK

uknick wrote: »

Eddie

Why not call them to ask what exactly she meant? If it is the check that calls for all convictions, then is it worth explaining what has happened?

I know honesty is not always the best policy in life, but if you think you will be stuffed for saying nothing, an honest approach now might help.

Of course it might dump you in the smelly stuff, as I've found out in the past.

With regard to some of the posts here attacking you, I wouldn't put too much stock in them (easy for me to say I know). You seem to be very down but, from what I read you really don't want to follow the dark side. If that was the case, I'm sure you would have done so some time ago.

I was honest mate, I filled out a basic check which only shows unspent convictions (which I declared)... declaring my entire past and spent convictions would be like declaring that I pick my nose and love the smell of my own farts in the interview... it just doesn't need to be said and it would be extremely dumb to say it... they will not show up on a basic disclosure scotland check, which is definitely the form I filled in originally... and legally, those spents had "passed" the rehabilitation act of 19blabla... so I'm not legally required to declare them.

But I can not recall whether I signed the same type of form, or a DBS form when I was asked to sign the blank in the induction before I started, so it's Russian Roulette and the chamber is spinning for a torturous 2 weeks..

I'm not ringing them, that's counter productive, that might make them actually want a DBS check on me.. if they're not already doing one.

bluenoseam

Time for a little reality check. You sound like someone with a sense that you're entitled to something but here's a little enlightenment for you.

As someone who occasionally receives goods through the mail system, I want NO ONE with any convictions beyond minor traffic offenses handling my mail.

You "want more" from life, I get that, but here's something else I get - you committed acts which are of a nature that they show up on a criminal record check. That's going to stick for a long time, your attitude sounds like you haven't really learned a damn thing from your "experiences" (talking of going back to "non legit" methods). Now I'm all for giving ex-offenders a shot, but not in any and all fields - dealing with post is one of them. There's a couple of million people unemployed, millions more underemployed who have ZERO criminal background! If you're looking at it from a sensible non-biased decision, who would you employ, someone with no criminal record or someone with prior convictions?

You might want the flash life, but newsflash, there's people out there who want exactly the same as you who don't have your background. You might think you deserve the good stuff in life because your police trouble was as a "daft kid" but the reality is because of your past you'll have to live with the hand you've dealt yourself.

EddieUK

bluenoseam wrote: »

If you're looking at it from a sensible non-biased decision, who would you employ, someone with no criminal record or someone with prior convictions?

A sensible non-biased decision?...

I would employ the person who interviewed best, was the best presented, showed the most enthusiasm and who I thought would be better suited for the job.

Even more so if that person happened to be somebody who clearly wanted a chance to earn a good living in a good job, despite an unappatizing teenage history, I'd be happy to be the one giving them the chance to establish themselves in life.


You're the type to give a software programming job for example... to a university graduate with a degree and zero experience, over somebody with 5 years of solid self taught experience.

You're the type to give the job to any characterless drone with zero background, rather than a motivated, young and hungry person who just wants a chance to make a life for himself, but is held back by people like you who will reject him because he gave somebody a good hiding a few years ago for getting lippy on a night out.

Basically, you represent part of the reason why unemployment is so high in this country.

You contradicted yourself by the way, you say "unbiased"... but then you're biased in favor of people who have done wrong in the past.

Isn't it funny how people like to say "the past is the past" only when it suits them... "I cheated on my wife, but that's in the past, this is the now"... if that counts then I did some stupid things in the past, but the past is the past, this is the now and I am desperate for a chance.

bluenoseam

I would give the person the job who is least likely to give me issues, in all honestly that is going to be the person who can control themselves, show intelligent judgement & know how to deal with problems properly. Your example of "giving someone a good hiding" shows someone who lacks self control, lacks the ability to show intelligent thought process & cannot deal with problems properly. Either that or I've missed something along the line when I've been out, because if someone gives me lip I'll generally resort to the age old intelligent solution & go elsewhere.

I'm also someone who has told you I do believe in offering second chances within reason and gave you the perfect example as to WHY I would be wary of hiring someone with an undisclosed conviction as a postie. There are numerous places whereby someone with your background can work perfectly capably, but a position of trust with items which can be valuable - no chance. Similarly if the convictions were for violent acts I'd be wary of hiring them for customer facing roles knowing the sort of stuff customers will come away with.

I did not say I was being unbiased - if you're hiring your first thought is to protect your company's interests, if there's a potential security risk that's not going to tick that box. I asked YOU to be unbiased and assess if you would hire someone with a criminal background over a non-criminal background. Something you clearly cannot do given the fact you can't disassociate from the effect your background has on you.

Your example of graduate v self taught is also slightly inadequate, given clients would look for certified knowledge it's a no brainer. The graduate will have 3 years of top level experience in the field as opposed to 5 years self taught - so 2 years further learning with no certification to back it up.

You want some straight up unbiased advice - you're one of a thousand people out there who figure they're perfect for a job who will be rejected for it. Atleast you know WHY you're likely to be rejected for it and it won't be a case of being fed some BS line about "lacking experience" or "too much experience". You have the luxury of closure knowing exactly why you're not likely to get the job (which at this point, correct me if I'm wrong is hypothetical given you haven't been told if you are or aren't successful?) - and it's not something you can do anything about. There's no sense in being depressed about something it's too late to change, ultimately it's something which you have had control over. (Because there are people out there who are disabled who will be rejected for jobs based on something they have no control over for example. It happens and we all know it!)

Gloss over the rest of the post, but I get the feeling you wanted to skip over that because you know it was 100% on target & purely wanted to focus on the fact I have disdain for people with criminal backgrounds.

dandelionclock30

Whether he gets the job or not has nothing to do with you. So all that guff your spouting is neither here not there.