Convince me to work

daytona0

naff123 wrote: »

I don't personally I just see it as a justification for people judging and being assumptive of people. Nobody knows the actual nitty gritty I was always taught in my profession to never shut the door on anybody and give everyone a chance to prove themselves and you know what some of the best people are 'mavericks' or go 'against the grain'.

Ok so of the 20 jobs OP has had, which one was giving OP a "chance to prove themselves"?

The "maverick" in OP will probably end up going "against the grain" by ending up homeless and living on the streets because they have no family to support them, and because they can't hold down a job (and yes, 20 is too many to be bad luck). Maverick my bum.

lincroft1710

naff123 wrote: »

I don't personally I just see it as a justification for people judging and being assumptive of people. Nobody knows the actual nitty gritty I was always taught in my profession to never shut the door on anybody and give everyone a chance to prove themselves and you know what some of the best people are 'mavericks' or go 'against the grain'.

But unfortunately many employers don't want square pegs, they want people they can pigeon hole. I can see your point of view, but I would suggest that employers with your outlook are in the minority.

xapprenticex

naff123 wrote: »

I don't personally I just see it as a justification for people judging and being assumptive of people. Nobody knows the actual nitty gritty I was always taught in my profession to never shut the door on anybody and give everyone a chance to prove themselves and you know what some of the best people are 'mavericks' or go 'against the grain'.

I've no issue with a bleeding heart speaking of ideals in a perfect world but this is reality.

if you were in a position where you were employing people, maybe you'd give people a chance, people who wouldn't normally be given one, assuming profit and productivity isnt your highest priority and you're willing to take a gamble/punt but for many/most, its about the best person for the job who has the highest chance of getting the job done and making money for the organisation without and hiccups.

TBagpuss

naff123 wrote: »

What ever happened to equal opportunities and judging people based on ability above all else?

Ability to do what?

For many, if not most,jobs, abilities such as being able to get along with colleagues, to carry out the role as instructed, to keep going rather than give up etc. are pretty important. And if you see a CV where the application has a consistent history of leaving after short periods of time it casts doubt on those abilities.

Lots of people have multiple jobs, and anyone can be unlucky, but where you see a pattern you have to ask yourself how the job you are recruiting for is different to the last 20 the person has. What is there to suggest that they have the ability to keep this job longer then the last 20?

Recruiting is expensive. Training people takes time and that is expensive. Having a new employee who doesn't yet know their job, or having someone leave and leave you short-handed both put pressure on the remaining staff.

Don't underestimate the benefit to the employer of picking someone who has the ability to hold a job. It's a valuable job skill.

naff123

daytona0 wrote: »

Ok so of the 20 jobs OP has had, which one was giving OP a "chance to prove themselves"?

The "maverick" in OP will probably end up going "against the grain" by ending up homeless and living on the streets because they have no family to support them, and because they can't hold down a job (and yes, 20 is too many to be bad luck). Maverick my bum.

You should read some of your own posts sometimes.

you have no clue into the personal circumstances or mental health of said person.

Maybe a job in the Department of Work and Pensions is for you with such attitude and contempt towards people.

daytona0

naff123 wrote: »

You should read some of your own posts sometimes.

Actually, my post was just highlighting a potential reality for OP if they carry on doing what they are doing. I'm not sitting here with glee at the prospect of OP being homeless and out of work...

...BUT on the same point, something clearly isn't working in OP's life and needs to be addressed. Funnily enough but your advice wasn't a million miles away from that of other people (I believe you called them trolls) as well! I kinda don't understand why we are all arguing over it.

you have no clue into the personal circumstances or mental health of said person.

Neither do you. Until OP states anything then it is pure speculation.

Maybe a job in the Department of Work and Pensions is for you with such attitude and contempt towards people.

Hahaha. Well it pays money so I wouldn't say no :rotfl: (and maybe it is a secure job in that you can easily last 3+ years!)

Towser

After all this discussion I don't understand what the actual problem is now?

To move forward it is best to get a job and learn from you mistakes.

Good Luck in your new position.

devilivus

SomeRandomGuy wrote: »

The state attempts to push people into work by keeping JSA and related benefits barely at subsistence level and by perpetuating the scrounger narrative that has society looking down on welfare recipients. However many still end up living this way with perhaps the odd bit of cash in hand work on the side.

So many jobs provide no security and such a meagre wage that if people were to stop moralising about the issue and think rationally they would realize it is actually quite logical for some people at the bottom of society to choose benefits over work. .

I guess it does make sense for some people (low paid people without degrees for example) to choose benefits. You get about the same amount of money as you do with working (through rent being paid as opposed to all of your wages going on rent)+JSA, and none of the negatives (getting bossed around, having to get out of bed early, being tired/stressed, having your time taken away etc etc)

SomeRandomGuy

devilivus wrote: »

I guess it does make sense for some people (low paid people without degrees for example) to choose benefits. You get about the same amount of money as you do with working (through rent being paid as opposed to all of your wages going on rent)+JSA, and NONE of the negatives (getting bossed around, having to get out of bed early, being tired/stressed etc etc)

Of course it does. I don't want to get sucked into a moral argument or go too far off topic, but I always feel slightly perplexed when people suggest taking any job for 'self respect'. Is it really demonstrating self respect to work your butt off for minimum wage, end up no better off and suffer all of the negatives you mention (plus more)?

Regardless of the above I believe most people do want to work as it gives people a sense of purpose and a place of belonging in society. But for those with issues who are already on the edges of society it is hardly surprising that they weigh up the options and stick with benefits or simply can't navigate a path forwards on their own.

We are constantly told if only we work/study/try harder we will have success but that simply isn't the reality for many; even educated people with degrees. I think the scrounger/skiver type of narrative is often used to demonize the unemployed (sadly often the disabled too) as worthless and distract attention away from fundamental economic issues........ namely the lack of decent, secure, fairly paid jobs for the average person.

jimmy2times

SomeRandomGuy wrote: »

Of course it does. I don't want to get sucked into a moral argument or go too far off topic, but I always feel slightly perplexed when people suggest taking any job for 'self respect'. Is it really demonstrating self respect to work your butt off for minimum wage, end up no better off and suffer all of the negatives you mention (plus more)?

Regardless of the above I believe most people do want to work as it gives people a sense of purpose and a place of belonging in society. But for those with issues who are already on the edges of society it is hardly surprising that they weigh up the options and stick with benefits or simply can't navigate a path forwards on their own.

We are constantly told if only we work/study/try harder we will have success but that simply isn't the reality for many; even educated people with degrees. I think the scrounger/skiver type of narrative is often used to demonize the unemployed (sadly often the disabled too) as worthless and distract attention away from fundamental economic issues........ namely the lack of decent, secure, fairly paid jobs for the average person.

I've always been a minimum wage worker doing some pretty horrid jobs. To be honest, I probably was slightly happier when I was on benefits for a while about 3 years ago than I am as a worker.
Both instances are depressing, but it's just a different type of depression in my experience.
I work with a few guys who have been at the company for about 20 years and still only earn a few pence over the minimum wage. THey try hard at their jobs, but there's no room for promotion as they simply aren't capable to do the complicated stuff. The promotions/pay rises are naturally given to those with degrees
There's nothing in place for those of us not lucky enough to be born with big brains!
Maybe everyone below a certain IQ should be entitled to a 'dumb persons allowance' of £200 per week! That would be heaven for me, lol