Still Waters Posted August 23, 2013 #1 Share Posted August 23, 2013 A businesswoman has criticised ‘useless’ JobCentre staff who directed 100 applicants to her – but none was interested in a job. Jean Rasbridge said the service was ‘wasting everyone’s time’ after candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired. She claims the Government-run centres were simply helping the unemployed to ‘tick boxes’ so they could keep their benefits. http://www.dailymail...s-benefits.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 23, 2013 #2 Share Posted August 23, 2013 It seems we are living in parallel worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecoNoir Posted August 23, 2013 #3 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Well, glad to see American culture is spreading. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted August 23, 2013 #4 Share Posted August 23, 2013 A businesswoman has criticised ‘useless’ JobCentre staff who directed 100 applicants to her – but none was interested in a job. Jean Rasbridge said the service was ‘wasting everyone’s time’ after candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired. She claims the Government-run centres were simply helping the unemployed to ‘tick boxes’ so they could keep their benefits. http://www.dailymail...s-benefits.html That happens sometimes, i heard jobseekers get threatened to do a job or benefits stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted August 23, 2013 #5 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Yes, lazy scroungers who have never done a day's work in their lives, such as people with PhDs, teachers, lecturers, some of them from quite a distance away Let me guess, of the 100 applications she received, the 7 people she called in for an interview for her warehouse packing job, were the ones with PhDs, teachers and lecturers? No wonder she managed to find the ones who were only ticking boxes, that is, applying for any old job to keep their benefits, but waiting for something better. What about the other 93 applicants, most of whom were presumably without a university education? How can she call them useless, if she never even spoke to them? The readers' comments below are also highly amusing, if equally depressing, since they all seem to have missed the point of what was going on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabby Kitten Posted August 24, 2013 #6 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Job centre staff are doing what they're told, and it's not nice of her to slam these people. Why not blame the government who set down these rules? Or even she could blame the managers of job centres who put pressure on their staff? The ones in job centres dealing with the public have dirty jobs. Also she could blame the lazy people for not tunring up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted August 24, 2013 #7 Share Posted August 24, 2013 (edited) Having the unfortunate need to use one of these places a few years ago, this story doesn't surprise in the least, & indeed the whole process is distilled down to a box ticking exercise. Edited August 24, 2013 by itsnotoutthere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted August 24, 2013 #8 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Job centre staff are doing what they're told, and it's not nice of her to slam these people. Why not blame the government who set down these rules? Or even she could blame the managers of job centres who put pressure on their staff? The ones in job centres dealing with the public have dirty jobs. Also she could blame the lazy people for not tunring up. no its the staff, most of them are nice, but some of them are rude according to people i know that are on jobseekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted August 24, 2013 #9 Share Posted August 24, 2013 (edited) Let me guess, of the 100 applications she received, the 7 people she called in for an interview for her warehouse packing job, were the ones with PhDs, teachers and lecturers? No wonder she managed to find the ones who were only ticking boxes, that is, applying for any old job to keep their benefits, but waiting for something better. What about the other 93 applicants, most of whom were presumably without a university education? How can she call them useless, if she never even spoke to them? Whilst this is understandable, it begs the question, why should the working population have to continue to support those who consider themselves too good for a particular job? Edited August 24, 2013 by ealdwita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted August 24, 2013 #10 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Whilst this is understandable, it begs the question, why should the working population have to continue to support those who consider themselves to good for a particular job? I'm not defending them, I'm pointing out where this woman was unfairly criticising the 93 applicants she didn't bother interviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuzzy Posted August 24, 2013 #11 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Why is this an 'Unexplained- Mystery' ??? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Star Posted August 25, 2013 #12 Share Posted August 25, 2013 (edited) If it is true that …..(After candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired) If this was/ is the case…..Then surely that would mean the applicants would loose their benefits, No? Sometimes i find it hard not to think a wedge is being driven deep between the jobless, the disabled and the working…By snide comments such as this. Edited August 25, 2013 by Blue Star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted August 25, 2013 #13 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Why is this an 'Unexplained- Mystery' ??? News, Politics and Current Affairs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted August 25, 2013 #14 Share Posted August 25, 2013 (edited) Whilst this is understandable, it begs the question, why should the working population have to continue to support those who consider themselves too good for a particular job? To be honest, I put more of the blame on employers than those seeking work (even if they are just 'ticking boxes'.) Employers today are much more choosey in who they wish to even interview, let alone give a job to - because they know they hold all the cards. If employers were less restrictive in their selection criteria, I'm sure they would encounter this sort of problem far less frequently (if it is, in fact, frequent at all*.) But employers want to employ someone they can get on the job straight away, without lengthy, possibly expensive, training, etc. I can understand, from an economics pov, why they would want that, but in the modern employment environment it just adds to the issue. * And herein lies the question, how often does this happen? The Daily Mail would want to sensationalise such a happenstance, as it suits their political agenda to do so. But if this is occurring only rarely, then it isn't really an issue we should be focussed on, or particularly concerned about. Edited August 25, 2013 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now