35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

marybelle01

AP007 wrote: »

'we are looking for someone who is either a 2nd jobber or who has between 1 – 2 years’ work experience. As you have significantly more experience than this we are unable to take your application forward.'

I wonder where on the advert it said that? Have a look closely - that's right its not there!

Skirting dangerously towards age discrimination there, I suspect. It doesn't take a genius to work out the subtext of "we would like someone cheaper than you would be". Since I believe, from reading another current thread, that the answer to people being paid low wages is to halt all migrant workers, perhaps the answer to this sort of thing would be to stop all younger people from working? Oh, hang on - aren't the government trying that?

AP007

marybelle01 wrote: »

Skirting dangerously towards age discrimination there, I suspect. It doesn't take a genius to work out the subtext of "we would like someone cheaper than you would be". Since I believe, from reading another current thread, that the answer to people being paid low wages is to halt all migrant workers, perhaps the answer to this sort of thing would be to stop all younger people from working? Oh, hang on - aren't the government trying that?

I would be the NMW to them if they wanted - they have no idea what I was earning and it wasn't anything like they would probably guess.

As I stated in my last post here one job was paying £33k!! I thought it too good to be true but it was for an investment bankers.

Podge52

Sorry for the confusion with gender AP007.
What responses do you receive when you apply for the menial type jobs, like call center work, catering, cleaning, shopwork etc. I notice you posting responses you have received from accountancy positions you have applied for, but nothing from these types of jobs.
Are your qualifications a hindrance for these positions?

red_devil

AP007 wrote: »

Its called progress to be fair. You sound a bit like my dad who I am sure still thinks we should be in a horse and cart!

Its not progress for the better and its tzken jobs away.

AP007

red_devil wrote: »

Its not progress for the better and its tzken jobs away.

And so have any machinery that has been invented to replace the worker.

fruitedeli

Denning. wrote: »

No he isn't. Despite constantly being told he is 'overqualified' he has not take the simple step of dumbing down his CV. He doesn't want to make it seem like he has done nothing with his working life, ie, he doesn't want to appear less than what he is.

His pride is stopping him getting a job, nothing else.

You are an idiot for advocating fraud. Omitting qualifications/work experience with intent to make yourself appear more desirable for entry level jobs is fraud. This isn't about pride. It's called honesty, not doing something ILLEGAL.

Denning.

fruitedeli wrote: »

You are an idiot for advocating fraud. Omitting qualifications/work experience with intent to make yourself appear more desirable for entry level jobs is fraud. This isn't about pride. It's called honesty, not doing something ILLEGAL.

You are an idiot if you are putting your year 3 SATs on your CV.

Dunroamin

fruitedeli wrote: »

You are an idiot for advocating fraud. Omitting qualifications/work experience with intent to make yourself appear more desirable for entry level jobs is fraud. This isn't about pride. It's called honesty, not doing something ILLEGAL.

Omitting qualifications you have isn't fraudulent, including ones you don't actually possess is. Neither is illegal.

dktreesea

AP007 wrote: »

My own doing? How dare you!

I was made redundant so how was that my fault? 3 of us lost our jobs. Was it all our faults the company closed sites down? What do you think?

You wont get a reply from me anymore and enjoy your internship

When you one day have no job maybe think back to now and your !!!!!! attitude!

I can see why you wouldn't think being made redundant wasn't your fault. But at the same time, prospective employers may be wondering why the company didn't redeploy you, why you lost your job as opposed to other people still in the company.

They get so many applications from people who are still in work looking for a new challenge, they don't need to risk anything by employing someone previously laid off.

But why wait for someone to give you a job? This is what I don't understand about the long term unemployed. So what no one recogises your worth enough to give you a job. Surely it is up to you to recognise your own worth? Can't you become self employed instead? Maybe not doing the same thing, but at least you would be working. I realise self employment is not likely to be as lucrative as being employed for some people, but at least it's work.

Denning.

dktreesea wrote: »

I can see why you wouldn't think being made redundant wasn't your fault. But at the same time, prospective employers may be wondering why the company didn't redeploy you, why you lost your job as opposed to other people still in the company.

They get so many applications from people who are still in work looking for a new challenge, they don't need to risk anything by employing someone previously laid off.

But why wait for someone to give you a job? This is what I don't understand about the long term unemployed. So what no one recogises your worth enough to give you a job. Surely it is up to you to recognise your own worth? Can't you become self employed instead? Maybe not doing the same thing, but at least you would be working. I realise self employment is not likely to be as lucrative as being employed for some people, but at least it's work.

Or do volunteering. I would dismiss any application of long term unemployed which didn't have anything filling the gaps. Anything that shows you haven't been doing nothing.

Inb4 OMG JOBSEEKING IS A 24/7 JOB! we all know it isn't.