Feel guilty I couldn't provide everything for my (immigrant from USA) spouse

Spendless

McAnniee wrote: »

I don't want to post where I am exactly for obvious reasons; but there are many opportunities in our large town and especially if able to drive to other towns (10, 15, 20 mile radius or so) where those jobs are.

I live right on top of a huge industrial estate with factory/warehouse/etc type jobs being the bulk of people employed by those companies. I'm afraid agencies are the barrier rather than the companies themselves, as the agencies can often be quite 'snooty' and dismiss even relevant experience etc. if the face doesn't fit. (those companies mostly recruit through agencies rather than direct)

I came across a situation where someone (not my H, but someone he knew) was doing a minimum wage level job but was offered the chance to take on a new post with the same company with more responsibility and more knowledge needed and so on, but for the same wage. If this was my H should he have taken on that "opportunity"? Although the company was obviously taking the P? (I'm genuinely asking. I don't know whether I would or not in that situation!)

In general with those types of jobs there aren't the opportunities to "ask" for extra training and so on. Your job is whatever the supervisor screams at you that day!

Load of rubbish! I live in a deprived (ex mining town) and my eldest was born 17 years ago next month, so I've been restricted to what jobs I could do (due to childcare) for exactly the same years your ex was seeking work.

During 2000-2002 you could easily walk into a minimum wage job by proving you could string a sentence together. That's what I did when my eldest was a baby (retail work in evenings/weekends).

I then gave up my job (problems in 2nd pregnancy) and didn't return to the job market until 2010.

IMO the job market changed after the recession/credit crunch of 2008. More zero hour contracts, agency work and less jobs around.

You are telling me that at no factory/warehouse job that he was at, could he ask about the process to obtain a fork-lift truck licence?. Or at a shop asking about becoming the key-holder/duty manager? Your ex might have never asked, doesn't mean the opportunities weren't there.

I temp myself (via an agency) at exactly the sort of places you're talking about. What the agencies want is someone reliable, punctual, flexible. My agency never hears from me since I started there last summer, unless I want to book annual leave. My placement never has to ring them concerning me, which is why I'm there nearly 8 months later on a contract that was for 3-6 months. That's unlike the drivers mate that was booked for today, and didn't show up! He's not going to be asked again, that would be why his 'face won't fit', to do with his actions not the agency.

And yes, sometimes you do have to do something for nothing (or for no extra) to build a stepping stone to something else, especially if there is something that is proving a barrier to secure employment. How many people do voluntary work (ie unpaid!) for exactly that reason.

System

OP your taking on far too much guilt for what is essentially your ex's problem.

justme111

Yes, I think she has phrased the title of thread badly. It should not be "should I have provided for my husband" but "was there anything I done that contributed to the demise of our marriage".

Hermia

McAnniee wrote: »

Yes - he's very socially inept in many ways. I gave coaching, and offered up other resources about "how to do well in interviews" and things like that. Websites, books, my experience, etc. We role played "difficult" interviews (with me as the difficult interviewer) a couple of times. He was willing, but struggled I think to truly take it in.

I'm great at interviews myself; once I've got through to the interview stage I can almost certainly convince the Hiring Manager to hire me (The only interview I've not had a job offer from was an Internal Interview with extensive politics behind it which I found out later - all other interviews have resulted in offers!), so I had many things I could share. Although I don't know if he took them in. I think he was listening, but couldn't "internalise" that info.

I do think you two got into an unhealthy dynamic. You were mummy, he was the ditzy kid. You were coach, he was pupil. I think that often doesn't work with couples. I wonder if he would have been able to 'internalise that info' if a friend had helped him. When people are with partners they often don't try as hard because they don't need to, but they wouldn't want to look daft in front of a mate. The best thing I ever did job-wise was go on a one-day interview performance course when I was starting out. Having a bunch of strangers evaluate me in a way my friends/family never would was so useful. Did he ask his friends for assistance or news of job opportunities?

McAnniee wrote: »

We went through all the interview techniques etc, but, it's almost like he couldn't overcome or accept the need to deal with "stupid people" etc but it wasn't out of a sense of entitlement or snobbery, but rather idealism and naivet!.

Sorry, I think having that attitude is down to being judgemental, not down to idealism! It is also rather bizarre him thinking that as he sounds like he may have come across as the stupid person when dealing with shop assistants/receptionists/whatever given his apparent inability to learn our culture! If he didn't want to deal with stupid people than he needed to go and get some education/training to allow him to go into a professional role.

So far you have put his career issues down to anti-American feelings from his bosses, no good job opportunities over a 17 year period and discrimination on the part of agencies. Doesn't this all just seem a bit unlikely to you? Especially as this thread has shown that plenty of people from different areas have managed to flourish, even immigrants, during that period. If all this is true why did it not encourage him to do something to advance his career (education etc). Or use his nationality as his USP. I have an American friend who started teaching an adult education course on American history and got opportunities from that. She had never done anything like that before, but she put the work in and people loved having an actual American teaching them.

BTW, he finds people he works with stupid and claims his exes were basket cases? He is the common denominator in all this. My rule in life is if I keep having bad experiences with people I start to wonder if I am the catalyst!

NBLondon

TBagpuss wrote: »

I think this may be the crux of the problem. It sounds to me as though you are perhaps the kind of person who is good at problem solving. It's a useful skill to have, but I think there is a danger of seeing *everything* as a problem which it is your responsibility to solve.

McAnniee wrote: »

Yeah, I'm a "problem solver" by nature. I'm the kind of person that when friends 'vent' about some situation, I am seeking out and suggesting ways to "solve the problem" rather than just being the listening ear and reserving judgement. In fact I'm terrible at "reserving judgement" most of the time - for any situation, I have an opinion.

I think this is quite telling...
Often it's a thing that men are told they do - always offering a solution when what their partner actually wants is someone to listen and be sympathetic/empathetic. So if you were doing it all the time (with the best intentions of course) it could have contributed to him falling into a pattern of not taking control himself (or as some here suggest, it hurt his masculinity).
In fact, my wife sometimes has a tendency to try and solve problems as soon as I start telling her about them - without waiting to find out if I have already found a solution or implemented it; or assuming there is a problem when there is no impact on us. To the point where I find myself biting my tongue to avoid saying "It's not your problem - it's mine!"
So perhaps stepping back and letting him find his own way earlier on (or telling him to get a grip and solve things himself) might have helped.

Malthusian

[OT musing] I have never heard the expression "doesn't suffer fools gladly" and not heard a veiled criticism of the person doing the not-suffering. St Paul's implication that a wise man is glad to suffer fools is a truism. If everyone was just as intelligent, well-informed and altogether wise as we are, most of us on this board would be out of a job. Or if we did still have our jobs it would pay minimum wage.

Being rude to someone who has something you want (e.g. authority to offer a job) is not the action of an intelligent person. You may well have a larger brain than them, but they are holding the better cards and the higher ground, and you play the game accordingly.

it's almost like he couldn't overcome or accept the need to deal with "stupid people" etc but it wasn't out of a sense of entitlement or snobbery, but rather idealism and naivete.

I'm curious to know how you distinguish between snobbery and idealism. What does an idealistic person do when they're talking down to an interviewer that a snobbish person doesn't?

Hermia

Malthusian wrote: »

[OT musing] I have never heard the expression "doesn't suffer fools gladly" and not heard a veiled criticism of the person doing the not-suffering. St Paul's implication that a wise man is glad to suffer fools is a truism. If everyone was just as intelligent, well-informed and altogether wise as we are, most of us on this board would be out of a job. Or if we did still have our jobs it would pay minimum wage.

Being rude to someone who has something you want (e.g. authority to offer a job) is not the action of an intelligent person. You may well have a larger brain than them, but they are holding the better cards and the higher ground, and you play the game accordingly.


I'm curious to know how you distinguish between snobbery and idealism. What does an idealistic person do when they're talking down to an interviewer that a snobbish person doesn't?

I am also curious why someone would be so judgemental to people in the workplace that they have only just met. I have seen plenty of interviewers/interviewees/colleagues say and do stupid things on first meeting and they turned out to be great people. They were just nervous or in a situation where they had little experience. IME interviewers are often an absolute bundle of nerves even though they look tough.

I have met a few "doesn't suffer fools gladly" people in the workplace and I would say the problem was always with them. They were generally people who could not emphasise with others so they would often be the only person judging someone. They also did not take the time to get to know people at all. I used to work with an awful guy who constantly complained about having to work with people who were intellectually beneath him. The thing is he never actually talked to anyone or came along to any social events.

springdreams

McAnniee wrote: »

History.

He didn't have a specific job in mind, but rather embarked on the degree initially because of a thirst for knowledge and stuck with it because of the "need a degree, subject is not as important as just having the degree" threshold of many jobs requiring a 'Graduate with 2:1 or higher' or such like.

Obviously there are some jobs where a History degree is specifically required (I assume!). But there are many more that require 'a degree', possibly specified to be in an Arts subject, and so on.

His thirst for knowledge must have been very short lived if he didn't feel compelled to gain an education once he hit UK soil. He had that first year where he was not allowed to work. He could have used it wisely to gain a qualification that would have been acknowledged and accepted in the UK.

And American history is vastly different to UK history. I can understand why his degree is of no use in the UK.

I think perhaps he is the fool / stupid one here rather than the potential employers / interviewers, as he seems to be failing to appreciate that effectively he has no recognisable qualifications in the UK at all. Because someone has a degree it doesn't make them superior to someone without one ...

Chances are a large number of people applied for the same jobs as your husband did. Chances are also that none of them, of very few of them, felt compelled to let the interviewer know or feel that they thought that they were more intelligent than the interviewer or that they considered the interviewer should not be in a position to decide whether or not to give the applicant the job. It is highly likely that the other applicants were a lot more keen to have the job than your husband was, considering he seemed to have thought that the interviewer was a blathering idiot, and that he (your husband) could do the interviewer's job better than the interviewer could, and those other applicants therefore put in a lot more effort to impress in order to try secure the job.

McAnniee

Hermia wrote: »

Did he ask his friends for assistance or news of job opportunities?

I don't know about assistance with job hunt techniques (but I don't think so), but he did put the word out with friends that he was looking and could they please look out for any opportunities / put his name forward with any relevant hiring managers at their company or who they know socially / etc.

Hermia wrote: »

So far you have put his career issues down to anti-American feelings from his bosses, no good job opportunities over a 17 year period and discrimination on the part of agencies. Doesn't this all just seem a bit unlikely to you? Especially as this thread has shown that plenty of people from different areas have managed to flourish, even immigrants, during that period. If all this is true why did it not encourage him to do something to advance his career (education etc). Or use his nationality as his USP. I have an American friend who started teaching an adult education course on American history and got opportunities from that. She had never done anything like that before, but she put the work in and people loved having an actual American teaching them.

BTW, he finds people he works with stupid and claims his exes were basket cases? He is the common denominator in all this. My rule in life is if I keep having bad experiences with people I start to wonder if I am the catalyst!

You're right, reflecting about it more (from your replies and all the other posters) it does seem unlikely that "anti-American sentiment" etc is the root cause of it! Actually that has come from my assumptions (and experience, with the overheard hiring manager), my husband never said to me (something like) "They didn't recruit me for this job because I'm foreign" or whatever. I suppose it was easier for me to blame it on the 'fall guy' of racism etc rather than being about the individual!!

McAnniee

Malthusian wrote: »

[OT musing] I have never heard the expression "doesn't suffer fools gladly" and not heard a veiled criticism of the person doing the not-suffering. St Paul's implication that a wise man is glad to suffer fools is a truism. If everyone was just as intelligent, well-informed and altogether wise as we are, most of us on this board would be out of a job. Or if we did still have our jobs it would pay minimum wage.

Yeah, I think I may have been misusing it all this time.... I have said it about myself on many an occasion (perhaps I'm the fool then!) although I have much more social aptitude as to what I can say to/about somebody or not.

Malthusian wrote: »

Being rude to someone who has something you want (e.g. authority to offer a job) is not the action of an intelligent person. You may well have a larger brain than them, but they are holding the better cards and the higher ground, and you play the game accordingly.

I'm curious to know how you distinguish between snobbery and idealism. What does an idealistic person do when they're talking down to an interviewer that a snobbish person doesn't?

Definitely contempt for the interviewer should be kept to himself, yes! I think it's a lack of social awareness or of how he comes across, rather than deliberate "rudeness". Although he has told me more than one thing he's said to bosses / trainers / etc which I would never have said because politically that isn't acceptable... even though I think it!

Distinguishing between snobbery and idealism? - yeah, the trouble is they come off as identical to others most of the time. I suppose snobbery is something like "I have a higher level of education than you / am more well connected / am richer" (or whatever) as a cause of contempt for someone, and idealism is a sort of wistfulness that things should be a meritocracy but aren't...... you're stupid and have no particular earned right to be in that position (generic you, not @Malthusian, obviously!) and I'm not, and yet here we are in this situation where you have all the power.

The sense I got from him when I talked about "having to play the game" (to which I totally agree, btw) was that "I shouldn't have to! This situation should be a straightforward exchange of views, rather than a load of politics and having to perceive the other person's state of mind although they don't say what they are thinking, and try to pre-empt what they are thinking", etc. (My words, not something he specifically said, but it was basically that sentiment).