Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Woman blasts 'time-wasting' job centre staff

14 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we are living in parallel worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, glad to see American culture is spreading. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by ealdwita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this an 'Unexplained- Mystery' ???

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Blue Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.