To those that dislike the idea of wanting more
Comments
-
VTech wrote:Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.
Jesus, of all the bollox you\ve written in this one, that sent my bolloxometer off the scale. You've obviously been very unfortunate in your life, or very creative with the truth.0 -
pliptrot wrote:VTech wrote:Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.
Jesus, of all the bollox you\ve written in this one, that sent my bolloxometer off the scale. You've obviously been very unfortunate in your life, or very creative with the truth.
Why's that then?
Your interviewing, paying out good money for a job role and the first three questions which are asked indicates their focus as self serving.
Personally I would not attend an interview if the salary level wasn't indicated and again that is open to experience in the role and the enhanced value a person could bring to the business. You would hope the person sitting in front has done some homework on your business and shows an interest in the role before drilling down into self interest. It's the equivilant of asking a potential lover, fancy a fuck as your first question. Its not going to happen or if it does expect issues later. In both respects.
Its a two way street, both for employer and employee and has to be mutually beneficial.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Thought Id join in just in case the bolloxmeter isnt high enough off the scale.johnfinch wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Any evidence would be a good start
since you're the one proposing it I'd hope you'd have some basis for a major change in UK corporate governance.
Unless someone has done a proper study which is available in English (as I don't speak German), then there isn't really much I can point to. However, like I say, it has done nothing at all to stop many, many German companies become world leaders, while German workers enjoy higher incomes and lower income inequality than us Brits.Stevo 666 wrote:To your last point. There's nothing to stop companies trying it if they want to - what I object to is yet another piece of legislation mandating something that may be inappropriate for many businesses. Companies are pragmatic - if they think it will give them a commerical edge or increase profits they will give it a go.
It's not just about increasing profits, it's also about looking after workers.Stevo 666 wrote:What I see every day is yet more flippin legislation and people like you or interfering government ministers saying 'just a little more bit here or there' - which all puts up the prices of the products and services we sell. (If tax wasn't so onerous and complex they wouldn't need people like me )
If we didn't have an adversarial worker-employer relationship, we could get by with less legislation, and probably less bureaucracy.Stevo 666 wrote:Like I said before, there are way of doing this without either mandating it law and/or forcing the involvement to be on a formal/board level. The Group I work in has several ways to achieve this, by employee forums with elected reps to deal with issues impacting our wellbeing/socical/H&S/benefits/etc etc. We also have forums for employees to put in ideas or comment son known issues/opprtunities etc in the business. Both generate real projects that make changes. There are others but I won't bore you.
OK, that's fine, but the UK doesn't do this on such a wide scale.Stevo 666 wrote:However, part of your point is based on the assumption that the directors sit there in ivory towers issuing arbitrary edicts to the minions. In the business I am in that is definitely not the case - they are out there in the market, selling, bulding relationships and getting involved in the detail. Ditto internally where I have contact with the Group CFO several times a day on averge - face to face as well as emails etc. There are a lot of businesses like that - because it works.
Unfortunately, while that can be the case, in many cases it isn't. Look, this country needs saving. At the moment, we're totally up shite creek. We've got 500% debt-to-GDP ratio, exports are falling, etc. Let's copy countries that do better than us.Stevo 666 wrote:So I am not averse to the principle - but it should be up to the company management and/or shareholders whether and how to do this.
As I have said above, we need to take drastic measures. We can't just sit back and say "let's leave this to employers, they know best".Stevo 666 wrote:Do you reckon I should lease my soul back now?
I thought you'd sold it? Too late for that now.
There is SIGNIFICANT academic research on firm theory, corporate governance and comparisons of different board structures. Read anything by Michael Jensen, and Mary O´Sullian (my old collegue!) and William Lazonik have written http://www.insead.edu/v1/projects/cgep/ ... 200201.pdf
Its fair to say that most desk research tends to prove whatever you want it to, but there is a definite trend to look at the growth of companies with worker-boards being higher than those without, and an even higher correlation of private firms outgrowint publicly quoted firms IF YOU TAKE A LONG ENOUGH SAMPLE PERIOD.
However, you are both missing the important point. Its not really about who decides, its about what your company decided to make or do. Weve moved from an economy of high throughput where economic value is added at every stage of the process (a car) to one of "asset" with no underlying value (Facebook, CDCs and most of the modern structured products I-Banks sell each other.) This means the "GDP" creation in the economy is prediminantly speculative, short term, easy to offshore and, due to the lack of skilled labour, these type of economic driver serve to concéntrate wealth much more than the "dark, satanic mills " of yore. God forbid, VTechs business is just the kind of thing we should be ecouraging more of. The Germany economy is much more orientated towards this, "Mittelstand", type of company.
But in case its coming across as me being pro_german, I blame a lot of the current economic crises on the Germans - to whit
1) Excessive focus on low inflation (no, its not 1929)
2) A blinkered view that exports will drive the economy to growth - beacuase it worked for Germany post unification, so why not now? Well, it worked in 2000 becasue other Europeans bought the stuff the Germans made on cheap loans which they cant get now
3) German Banks LOVED CDC´s , structured debt and other toxic assets and bought them by the SHEDLOAD: German Banks at ALL levels wanted to be big players and so were courted (and sh*t on) by thte big US institutions.
4) German Banks provided stupid loans to many S Europen Banks.
So be more like Germany and blame the Germans.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
4kicks wrote:Thought Id join in just in case the bolloxmeter isnt high enough off the scale.
There is SIGNIFICANT academic research on firm theory, corporate governance and comparisons of different board structures. Read anything by Michael Jensen, and Mary O´Sullian (my old collegue!) and William Lazonik have written http://www.insead.edu/v1/projects/cgep/ ... 200201.pdf
Its fair to say that most desk research tends to prove whatever you want it to, but there is a definite trend to look at the growth of companies with worker-boards being higher than those without, and an even higher correlation of private firms outgrowint publicly quoted firms IF YOU TAKE A LONG ENOUGH SAMPLE PERIOD.
So basically what I was hinting at.4kicks wrote:However, you are both missing the important point. Its not really about who decides, its about what your company decided to make or do. Weve moved from an economy of high throughput where economic value is added at every stage of the process (a car) to one of "asset" with no underlying value (Facebook, CDCs and most of the modern structured products I-Banks sell each other.) This means the "GDP" creation in the economy is prediminantly speculative, short term, easy to offshore and, due to the lack of skilled labour, these type of economic driver serve to concéntrate wealth much more than the "dark, satanic mills " of yore. God forbid, VTechs business is just the kind of thing we should be ecouraging more of. The Germany economy is much more orientated towards this, "Mittelstand", type of company.
That's the sort of thing that I, and a few others, have been saying throughout the thread. So I don't know what your bolloxmeter was picking up, but we're basically in agreement.0 -
If you can point me to the relevant bit in the link I'd be grateful - that is a big piece of work.4kicks wrote:[Thought Id join in just in case the bolloxmeter isnt high enough off the scale.
There is SIGNIFICANT academic research on firm theory, corporate governance and comparisons of different board structures. Read anything by Michael Jensen, and Mary O´Sullian (my old collegue!) and William Lazonik have written http://www.insead.edu/v1/projects/cgep/ ... 200201.pdf
Its fair to say that most desk research tends to prove whatever you want it to, but there is a definite trend to look at the growth of companies with worker-boards being higher than those without, and an even higher correlation of private firms outgrowint publicly quoted firms IF YOU TAKE A LONG ENOUGH SAMPLE PERIOD.
However, you are both missing the important point. Its not really about who decides, its about what your company decided to make or do. Weve moved from an economy of high throughput where economic value is added at every stage of the process (a car) to one of "asset" with no underlying value (Facebook, CDCs and most of the modern structured products I-Banks sell each other.) This means the "GDP" creation in the economy is prediminantly speculative, short term, easy to offshore and, due to the lack of skilled labour, these type of economic driver serve to concéntrate wealth much more than the "dark, satanic mills " of yore. God forbid, VTechs business is just the kind of thing we should be ecouraging more of. The Germany economy is much more orientated towards this, "Mittelstand", type of company.
But in case its coming across as me being pro_german, I blame a lot of the current economic crises on the Germans - to whit
1) Excessive focus on low inflation (no, its not 1929)
2) A blinkered view that exports will drive the economy to growth - beacuase it worked for Germany post unification, so why not now? Well, it worked in 2000 becasue other Europeans bought the stuff the Germans made on cheap loans which they cant get now
3) German Banks LOVED CDC´s , structured debt and other toxic assets and bought them by the SHEDLOAD: German Banks at ALL levels wanted to be big players and so were courted (and sh*t on) by thte big US institutions.
4) German Banks provided stupid loans to many S Europen Banks.
So be more like Germany and blame the Germans.
The point about what you make is a good one but only partly relevant to the little argument Finchy and I are having. It's a fact of life that things are more speculative and short term etc - but a large part of socialist thinking hasn't moved with that and is still in the manufacturing = good/services = bad and jobs for life as an entitlement mindset.
As to sample periods - well if you choose the time period carefully enough then you can make the stat support your view. It's just that Finchy couldn't find any sample periods at all, I at least managed one
I also agree that Germany is not is a totally rosy position as some would like to claim with its exposure to the Club Med counties and reliance on exports. But look on the bright side, we've finally started to cast off the disastrous consequences of the last labour govt and the UK is now growing faster than all of its competitors
:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/08/uk-economy-growth-outperform-imf"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In context of a slower recovery from a deeper recession than those competitors over the last 2-3 years.Stevo 666 wrote:we've finally started to cast off the disastrous consequences of the last labour govt and the UK is now growing faster than all of its competitors :
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/08/uk-economy-growth-outperform-imf0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:The point about what you make is a good one but only partly relevant to the little argument Finchy and I are having. It's a fact of life that things are more speculative and short term etc - but a large part of socialist thinking hasn't moved with that and is still in the manufacturing = good/services = bad and jobs for life as an entitlement mindset.
Eh? Well, I certainly don't think that. I'm a translator, so part of the services sector. It's just that I can see the way that the wind is blowing even in a skilled services job such as mine, with falling income predicted to worsen in the future, so I'm studying with the Open University at the moment so that I can be ready for the time that I can't support my family from my current work.
The reason so many people come back to manufacturing is that having a more balanced economy is a good way of making sure that people of all types of skills can prosper, rather than just services which suits more academically-inclined people and marginalises those of a more technical disposition.Stevo 666 wrote:As to sample periods - well if you choose the time period carefully enough then you can make the stat support your view. It's just that Finchy couldn't find any sample periods at all, I at least managed one
When you're looking at sampling, long term > short term. And it's not that I couldn't find any, it's more that I didn't bother looking. It's an Internet forum. Unless I already have a link in mind, I'm not going to start doing extensive searches to back up my point.Stevo 666 wrote:I also agree that Germany is not is a totally rosy position as some would like to claim with its exposure to the Club Med counties and reliance on exports. But look on the bright side, we've finally started to cast off the disastrous consequences of the last labour govt and the UK is now growing faster than all of its competitors :
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/08/uk-economy-growth-outperform-imf
We're doing this by inflating another housing bubble and getting ourselves into even more debt. Face it, the Tories are just as incompetent as Labour when it comes to running a national economy.0 -
pinarello001 wrote:
Perfect Tory scenario - let's say 2.5 million chasing those 500,000 jobs keeps wages well below what could be deemed a working wage. Let's then paint a picture that there are 3 million feckless wasters that the country cannot possibly support in benefits therefore we need to reduce these said benefits. Once that's done we can then lower taxes for our higher income buddies0 -
Well Stevo, the arguments and people are weighing in heavily against you.
Finchy, Nathancom, Pinarello001 and my grandads bike are chucking all sorts of reasonable argument towards you and you are barely treading water...so I am going to put the boot in.
Do you concede that having a strong industrial base supports the economy better than too much emphasis on the service and financial sector based on views posted here?
Lets talk about short-termism. Why are shareholders the dogs danglies where companies are more concerned with keeping shareholders happy than re-investing? I have said it before on another infamous thread - re-investment levels in the UK are paltry @ 1 to 2.5% at best, why - because dividend yield takes precedence?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
my grandad's bike wrote:Perfect Tory scenario - let's say 2.5 million chasing those 500,000 jobs keeps wages well below what could be deemed a working wage. Let's then paint a picture that there are 3 million feckless wasters that the country cannot possibly support in benefits therefore we need to reduce these said benefits. Once that's done we can then lower taxes for our higher income buddies
Are you talking about Tory politicians here, or just ordinary Tory voters? I've never bought into this idea that all conservatives are just selfish and don't care who gets hurt by policy x, y or z.
Even the politicians, I can't imagine them wanting to hurt the poor, I think it's more that they're clueless rather than evil.0 -
johnfinch wrote:my grandad's bike wrote:Perfect Tory scenario - let's say 2.5 million chasing those 500,000 jobs keeps wages well below what could be deemed a working wage. Let's then paint a picture that there are 3 million feckless wasters that the country cannot possibly support in benefits therefore we need to reduce these said benefits. Once that's done we can then lower taxes for our higher income buddies
Are you talking about Tory politicians here, or just ordinary Tory voters? I've never bought into this idea that all conservatives are just selfish and don't care who gets hurt by policy x, y or z.
Even the politicians, I can't imagine them wanting to hurt the poor, I think it's more that they're clueless rather than evil.
If you go to Uni and study political theory and ideology having come from a wah wah school in wah wah land far away from (un)loving parents, politics is the way forward. How the f*cking f*ck are politicians supposed to actually know the f*cking f*ck is going on? FFS Finchy, give them some slack.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OK, I thought I was being kind, calling them clueless. 0 -
Slowmart wrote:pliptrot wrote:VTech wrote:Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.
Jesus, of all the bollox you\ve written in this one, that sent my bolloxometer off the scale. You've obviously been very unfortunate in your life, or very creative with the truth.
Why's that then?
Your interviewing, paying out good money for a job role and the first three questions which are asked indicates their focus as self serving.
Personally I would not attend an interview if the salary level wasn't indicated and again that is open to experience in the role and the enhanced value a person could bring to the business. You would hope the person sitting in front has done some homework on your business and shows an interest in the role before drilling down into self interest. It's the equivilant of asking a potential lover, fancy a fark as your first question. Its not going to happen or if it does expect issues later. In both respects.
Its a two way street, both for employer and employee and has to be mutually beneficial.
I'm glad you understood my point. I was quite aware the others would argue.
For the people who biatched about feeding families and why not advertise the salary I find that question silly.
Law indicated you have to let them know the salary prior to interview and so they knew before being sat in front of me. I thought all of those in this thread were quite clever and would have known that basic law and so didn't feel the need to explain it.
The last job I advertised was for a junior tech to learn from me, it included travel around the world and the chance to work on supercars on a daily basis. 5 days a week basic with starting salary of £23,000 with all costs covered and chances of bonus with no cap.
A previous tech of mine who went on to head a tech team started on less and now takes home well in excess of £100k/year so plenty of scope.
Almost all applicants asked the same questions and I found it nauseating.
They knew the basic salary.
The law indicates I must give them at least 21 days holiday so they know that's the worst case scenario.
There is no need for selfish questions at an interview.
I don't care what some here think about my view on that. I'm the one paying the salary and it's my opinion that counts.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:I'm glad you understood my point. I was quite aware the others would argue.
For the people who biatched about feeding families and why not advertise the salary I find that question silly.
Law indicated you have to let them know the salary prior to interview and so they knew before being sat in front of me. I thought all of those in this thread were quite clever and would have known that basic law and so didn't feel the need to explain it.
The last job I advertised was for a junior tech to learn from me, it included travel around the world and the chance to work on supercars on a daily basis. 5 days a week basic with starting salary of £23,000 with all costs covered and chances of bonus with no cap.
A previous tech of mine who went on to head a tech team started on less and now takes home well in excess of £100k/year so plenty of scope.
Almost all applicants asked the same questions and I found it nauseating.
They knew the basic salary.
The law indicates I must give them at least 21 days holiday so they know that's the worst case scenario.
There is no need for selfish questions at an interview.
I don't care what some here think about my view on that. I'm the one paying the salary and it's my opinion that counts.
So you told them what the salary was beforehand and nearly all of them still asked you at the interview? You see, that's quite surprising, which is why some of us (well, me at least) questioned you on it.0 -
pinarello001 wrote:johnfinch wrote:my grandad's bike wrote:Perfect Tory scenario - let's say 2.5 million chasing those 500,000 jobs keeps wages well below what could be deemed a working wage. Let's then paint a picture that there are 3 million feckless wasters that the country cannot possibly support in benefits therefore we need to reduce these said benefits. Once that's done we can then lower taxes for our higher income buddies
Are you talking about Tory politicians here, or just ordinary Tory voters? I've never bought into this idea that all conservatives are just selfish and don't care who gets hurt by policy x, y or z.
Even the politicians, I can't imagine them wanting to hurt the poor, I think it's more that they're clueless rather than evil.
If you go to Uni and study political theory and ideology having come from a wah wah school in wah wah land far away from (un)loving parents, politics is the way forward. How the f*cking f*ck are politicians supposed to actually know the f*cking f*ck is going on? FFS Finchy, give them some slack.
I was referring to Tory politicians. I don't actually think there is a lot of difference between the average Tory and average labour "man on the street" voter.
I remember as a kid my dad (avid labour voter) and his best mate (avid Tory voter) getting pissed and thinking they were having a heated political argument. To the dumb sober kid it just sounded like two pissed men with the same values and aspirations just unable to decide who can deliver those aspirations and hold those values.
When I was younger I'd ponder that question myself before voting. Now I don't as they all appear to be self serving, expenses fiddling careerists who will screw over the "middle classes" to either pay for the feckless or provide tax relief to the upper classes.0 -
I think IDS knows exactly how much he is hurting the poor. He just thinks they need to be hurt for their own good.johnfinch wrote:my grandad's bike wrote:Perfect Tory scenario - let's say 2.5 million chasing those 500,000 jobs keeps wages well below what could be deemed a working wage. Let's then paint a picture that there are 3 million feckless wasters that the country cannot possibly support in benefits therefore we need to reduce these said benefits. Once that's done we can then lower taxes for our higher income buddies
Are you talking about Tory politicians here, or just ordinary Tory voters? I've never bought into this idea that all conservatives are just selfish and don't care who gets hurt by policy x, y or z.
Even the politicians, I can't imagine them wanting to hurt the poor, I think it's more that they're clueless rather than evil.0 -
johnfinch wrote:VTech wrote:I'm glad you understood my point. I was quite aware the others would argue.
For the people who biatched about feeding families and why not advertise the salary I find that question silly.
Law indicated you have to let them know the salary prior to interview and so they knew before being sat in front of me. I thought all of those in this thread were quite clever and would have known that basic law and so didn't feel the need to explain it.
The last job I advertised was for a junior tech to learn from me, it included travel around the world and the chance to work on supercars on a daily basis. 5 days a week basic with starting salary of £23,000 with all costs covered and chances of bonus with no cap.
A previous tech of mine who went on to head a tech team started on less and now takes home well in excess of £100k/year so plenty of scope.
Almost all applicants asked the same questions and I found it nauseating.
They knew the basic salary.
The law indicates I must give them at least 21 days holiday so they know that's the worst case scenario.
There is no need for selfish questions at an interview.
I don't care what some here think about my view on that. I'm the one paying the salary and it's my opinion that counts.
So you told them what the salary was beforehand and nearly all of them still asked you at the interview? You see, that's quite surprising, which is why some of us (well, me at least) questioned you on it.
As I said, I would be dealing the law had I not (well not me exactly but the agent who placed the add)
My point was that we ended up with a mix of people who were not bothered to read the job description properly and those who wanted to know the bonus and pay upgrade before they had started and known if they would be up for the job.
I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.Living MY dream.0 -
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up bollocks, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.0 -
VTech wrote:As I said, I would be dealing the law had I not (well not me exactly but the agent who placed the add)
My point was that we ended up with a mix of people who were not bothered to read the job description properly and those who wanted to know the bonus and pay upgrade before they had started and known if they would be up for the job.
Firstly, not all employers or agents obey the law.
Secondly, you often talk about international work, so I didn't know where the jobs were based and which country's laws applied.
Thirdly, laws change over time. You are older than me and might be talking about what you did when I was still a kid.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
£70 a week is not bliss. I don't think anyone would deny that there's a small number of people who are happy on that tiny amount of money and play the system for all it's worth, but most people who end up on benefits are there for a short time.0 -
nathancom wrote:
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up ****, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
This was a statement made by the officer at Longbridge Job Centre, it is also part of a government paper being drawn up where unemployed people attend interviewed just to keep getting paid, they must show a willingness to attend job interviews.
I despise your constant attempts to discredit me but in turn you only manage to make yourself look the fool.Living MY dream.0 -
You discredit yourself, I don't really have to add anything.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up ****, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
This was a statement made by the officer at Longbridge Job Centre, it is also part of a government paper being drawn up where unemployed people attend interviewed just to keep getting paid, they must show a willingness to attend job interviews.
I despise your constant attempts to discredit me but in turn you only manage to make yourself look the fool.0 -
johnfinch wrote:VTech wrote:As I said, I would be dealing the law had I not (well not me exactly but the agent who placed the add)
My point was that we ended up with a mix of people who were not bothered to read the job description properly and those who wanted to know the bonus and pay upgrade before they had started and known if they would be up for the job.
Firstly, not all employers or agents obey the law.
Secondly, you often talk about international work, so I didn't know where the jobs were based and which country's laws applied.
Thirdly, laws change over time. You are older than me and might be talking about what you did when I was still a kid.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
£70 a week is not bliss. I don't think anyone would deny that there's a small number of people who are happy on that tiny amount of money and play the system for all it's worth, but most people who end up on benefits are there for a short time.
Laws relate the region you are employed in. for example, I employ someone to travel with me to the USA, we must abide by USA law whilst in America but wages are subject to UK law in entirety.
To answer your point about money, there are definitely people here who after paying rent or mortgage, council tax, school and medical fees have less than £70 a week and thats after working a full 5 days so please don't use that excuse.
I am not relating to all employed, just a few I have come across, you were fully aware of that but I'm driving that hime in this sentence just to make it clear.
There have been several programmes of late which show people attend interviews with no intention of getting the job, I think to try and say this isn't real is the reason we have so many issues. You should never be unemployed and have more than someone working, thats just not right !!!!
I agree some are unemployed through no fault of their own and try to get on, these are the people who I feel for, not those who moan about having no cash yet always have a packet of fags and a can of stella in the fridge.Living MY dream.0 -
nathancom wrote:
You discredit yourself, I don't really have to add anything.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up ****, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
This was a statement made by the officer at Longbridge Job Centre, it is also part of a government paper being drawn up where unemployed people attend interviewed just to keep getting paid, they must show a willingness to attend job interviews.
I despise your constant attempts to discredit me but in turn you only manage to make yourself look the fool.
No, you make lies up, you are a horrid man (if in reality you are like your internet self)
You biatch about me bragging about what I have but you don't know the truth. I have only what I have worked for so why worry about me ? Why follow me all over the forum ? If you dislike me why not stay away ?
The reason is jealousy, there is no other reasoning for it.
And I ask again, what are you jealous of ? I don't have a second life coming, I don't have the ability to grow an arm if it drops off, I'm the same as you and anyone else. I just live my life differently.
I dont harm people, I go about my life trying to make each day worthy of that 24 hours that I will never get back.
You really do have little idea about how I really am and how I really see money, you use it to your perceived advantage but its flawed, its flawed because what you believe isn't reality, I have just chose not to make that known is all.Living MY dream.0 -
It's a tricky one. If someone asks about the money and holiday, then at least they are being honest. You ask them if they have any questions and they respond with things that matter. They could say something else but you'd still both know that holidays and money is what they really want to know the answer to and that is important.
And you could argue that if actually asking those questions indicates a degree of self serving attitude from the applicant, a reluctance/lack of enthusiasm to answer them on the part of the interviewer might suggest that the company is the sort that doesn't mind exploiting its staff (ie the presumption that a life outside of work isn't important - do you want balanced employees or work obsessives?). If you don't want applicants to ask these questions, make sure they know the answers to them before they arrive (though, as VTech seems find, that isn't as straightforward as you'd hope....).
Ultimately though, convention rules and it is a bit silly to focus all your interest during the interview on what you get when you aren't doing the job!Faster than a tent.......0 -
vtech, all you talk about is money, you're a completely one dimensional distraction on these boards.0
-
Rolf F wrote:It's a tricky one. If someone asks about the money and holiday, then at least they are being honest. You ask them if they have any questions and they respond with things that matter. They could say something else but you'd still both know that holidays and money is what they really want to know the answer to and that is important.
And you could argue that if actually asking those questions indicates a degree of self serving attitude from the applicant, a reluctance/lack of enthusiasm to answer them on the part of the interviewer might suggest that the company is the sort that doesn't mind exploiting its staff (ie the presumption that a life outside of work isn't important - do you want balanced employees or work obsessives?). If you don't want applicants to ask these questions, make sure they know the answers to them before they arrive (though, as VTech seems find, that isn't as straightforward as you'd hope....).
Ultimately though, convention rules and it is a bit silly to focus all your interest during the interview on what you get when you aren't doing the job!
Im with you in the whole. It is something you learn on any job application training that you never ask questions relating to holidays and salary as you should read this prior to the interview.
If nothing else it proves you haven't studied the job you are applying for.
I have a much stronger view in that if you are offering a job and someone is unemployed they will know that even given the worst case scenario they will get minimum wage, worst scenario is they get 21 days holiday plus whatever public holidays so even in a worst case it is better than being unemployed.
Putting that aside, I pay high wages, the reasoning is i expect a lot in return but those that work with me (notice i said we and not for) get rewarded.
@dodgy, I dont, I get people like nathancom bring it up in order to turn it into money.
I don't care about money. I care about working hard to make a difference. money is a side product.Living MY dream.0 -
Nice meltdown Vtech.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
You discredit yourself, I don't really have to add anything.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up ****, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
This was a statement made by the officer at Longbridge Job Centre, it is also part of a government paper being drawn up where unemployed people attend interviewed just to keep getting paid, they must show a willingness to attend job interviews.
I despise your constant attempts to discredit me but in turn you only manage to make yourself look the fool.
No, you make lies up, you are a horrid man (if in reality you are like your internet self)
You biatch about me bragging about what I have but you don't know the truth. I have only what I have worked for so why worry about me ? Why follow me all over the forum ? If you dislike me why not stay away ?
The reason is jealousy, there is no other reasoning for it.
And I ask again, what are you jealous of ? I don't have a second life coming, I don't have the ability to grow an arm if it drops off, I'm the same as you and anyone else. I just live my life differently.
I dont harm people, I go about my life trying to make each day worthy of that 24 hours that I will never get back.
You really do have little idea about how I really am and how I really see money, you use it to your perceived advantage but its flawed, its flawed because what you believe isn't reality, I have just chose not to make that known is all.
Now let's recap:
Vtech: Unemployed people only attend job interviews in order to get job centre signoff for their job seekers allowance.
Nathancom: More unpleasant smeering of unemployed people using edge cases to tarnish the whole group. Oh and it is not the law that you have to publish salaries on adverts
Vtech: Someone told me that once, it must be true about them all. An anecdote is universally applicable...Stop trying to discredit me by disagreeing with me.
Nathancom: You do a good enough job of that yourself
Vtech: You horrible evil person, you are just jealous of me. I just wanna have fun, stop personally attacking me and talking about all my money. Why are you following me around the forum (in a thread I have been posting in for some time now...) You don't even know what is going on here.
Yesterday you were proclaiming your care and consideration for your fellow man and today you have turned into Norman Tebbit claiming all unemployed people are on the make and complaining that people attending job interviews care about money (shock horror). At best you are continually self contradictory, at worst you are deranged.
Your post on these forums range from "look at how much money I have to spend of stuff" to "poor people need to suffer and struggle" and then on to "Some of us are leaders and the rest are followers" and you wonder why some people on this forum are unsympathetic towards you.
Oh and stop whining all the time.0 -
nathancom wrote:Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
In some ways, this comment sums up the whole thread - black and white position taking. In the real world, things are always shades of grey.
I'm retired now, but interviewed many people over the years for jobs. My advice to anyone getting an interview would be to treat it as part of the selling yourself process. You are trying to persuade the person offering the job that you are the applicant they should select out of all the probably many options open to them. You are most likely to do that by telling them what you can bring to the job, not by focusing on what the job can bring to you.
Of course, the package is important as most of us don't give our labour for altruistic purposes, but my own experience of applying for jobs is that you do your research before the interview to get indicators, and then discuss the fine details of the package after you are offered the job. Once the employer has made the decision you are the person for them, you are in a much stronger negotiating position.
When I used to interview people, if their primary focus was what they were going to get they were always lower down on my list of likeliest than the people that took the time to tell me what they were going to bring to the table. It also told me they weren't very smart.
So, of course package is important, but if you concentrate on that at an interview rather than on selling yourself, you are wasting a good opportunity.0 -
i don't whine, i reply to your lies and constant abuse and if you continue i will do what i should have done from the start. please don't push me.nathancom wrote:
Nice meltdown Vtech.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
You discredit yourself, I don't really have to add anything.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
More unpleasant, misinformed, made-up ****, using edge cases and outliers to frame anyone not in work. I guess £50 a week is too big a temptation for the feckless unemployed.VTech wrote:I am sure that anyone here who interviews or works in HR knows exactly what I am getting at. It's also a known fact that people attend interviews with the sole purpose of getting a knock-back simply to tick the box on the DSS form to continue in unemployed bliss.
Oh and it is not the law that you have to state salary on job adverts.
Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
This was a statement made by the officer at Longbridge Job Centre, it is also part of a government paper being drawn up where unemployed people attend interviewed just to keep getting paid, they must show a willingness to attend job interviews.
I despise your constant attempts to discredit me but in turn you only manage to make yourself look the fool.
No, you make lies up, you are a horrid man (if in reality you are like your internet self)
You biatch about me bragging about what I have but you don't know the truth. I have only what I have worked for so why worry about me ? Why follow me all over the forum ? If you dislike me why not stay away ?
The reason is jealousy, there is no other reasoning for it.
And I ask again, what are you jealous of ? I don't have a second life coming, I don't have the ability to grow an arm if it drops off, I'm the same as you and anyone else. I just live my life differently.
I dont harm people, I go about my life trying to make each day worthy of that 24 hours that I will never get back.
You really do have little idea about how I really am and how I really see money, you use it to your perceived advantage but its flawed, its flawed because what you believe isn't reality, I have just chose not to make that known is all.
Now let's recap:
Vtech: Unemployed people only attend job interviews in order to get job centre signoff for their job seekers allowance. I never said that, I never would say that, I simply stated I have had this in front of me and thats fact.
Nathancom: More unpleasant smeering of unemployed people using edge cases to tarnish the whole group. Oh and it is not the law that you have to publish salaries on adverts No agent will allow you to place an add without salary and hours being given beforehand, thats a fact.
Vtech: Someone told me that once, it must be true about them all. An anecdote is universally applicable...Stop trying to discredit me by disagreeing with me. no idea what your referring too, however i find your tittering around the subject quite amusing
Nathancom: You do a good enough job of that yourself no, i simply chose not to sit back and let a loser like yourself spout spiteful bile on this forum
Vtech: You horrible evil person, you are just jealous of me. I just wanna have fun, stop personally attacking me and talking about all my money. Why are you following me around the forum (in a thread I have been posting in for some time now...) You don't even know what is going on here. but you do, everyone can see that, you have followed me across this forum and I do think your jealous, i have made it known many times that you have nothing to be jealous of but you are relentless
Yesterday you were proclaiming your care and consideration for your fellow man and today you have turned into Norman Tebbit claiming all unemployed people are on the make and complaining that people attending job interviews care about money (shock horror). At best you are continually self contradictory, at worst you are deranged. no, that is simply down to your twisted approach of turning truth into lies, you are a liar of the highest order, you even claim mistakes of others to be lies yet you make up so much stuff (as proven above in this very reply) that it makes my ribs hurt with laughter
Your post on these forums range from "look at how much money I have to spend of stuff" to "poor people need to suffer and struggle" and then on to "Some of us are leaders and the rest are followers" and you wonder why some people on this forum are unsympathetic towards you. there are leaders and there are followers, that is fact, its the way it is. You also claim everything i do is for money yet you are so wrong and stupid with your replies that again you simply spout vile lies that in an open world would cause you to be dragged through the courts.
I have not posted this before as I didn't feel the need too but this is how much i care about money, i sold my company in december after my mothers death, 17 years of hard work but needed a release to spend with the family, it was a multimillion pound company and what did i do with the money ? i gave it all away, every penny, i didn't take a single cent.
not for tax reasons, it went through on entrepreneurs tax at 10% and the remainder was given away. as i said, i dopnt really care for money, if i need more i will earn it.
Oh and stop whining all the time.Living MY dream.0 -
Definitely, and if they don't get the role for that reason it is their own fault. I would expect the interviewer to broach the subject of package as part of the interview process anyway.paultheparaglider wrote:nathancom wrote:Funny how you think people should not care about the package when applying for a job as though the work is so fulfilling they should want to do it whatever pittance is offered.
In some ways, this comment sums up the whole thread - black and white position taking. In the real world, things are always shades of grey.
I'm retired now, but interviewed many people over the years for jobs. My advice to anyone getting an interview would be to treat it as part of the selling yourself process. You are trying to persuade the person offering the job that you are the applicant they should select out of all the probably many options open to them. You are most likely to do that by telling them what you can bring to the job, not by focusing on what the job can bring to you.
Of course, the package is important as most of us don't give our labour for altruistic purposes, but my own experience of applying for jobs is that you do your research before the interview to get indicators, and then discuss the fine details of the package after you are offered the job. Once the employer has made the decision you are the person for them, you are in a much stronger negotiating position.
When I used to interview people, if their primary focus was what they were going to get they were always lower down on my list of likeliest than the people that took the time to tell me what they were going to bring to the table. It also told me they weren't very smart.
So, of course package is important, but if you concentrate on that at an interview rather than on selling yourself, you are wasting a good opportunity.
My issue is using the attitude of some interview attendees to attack jobseekers as a whole as scroungers and parasites.0
This discussion has been closed.
