Yet more feckless wasters.

[martin84]

chrisispringles said:

Experience also comes from starting at the bottom of the chain and working your way up. Someone who hasn't worked is, to an employer, an unknown quantity; they have no idea whether they have any sort of work ethic. The only way to really prove that you have a work ethic is to hold down a job and that means starting from the bottom.

Unfortunately even jobs 'at the bottom' are looking for some level of experience these days. Young people used to get their first job in sectors like shop work or waiting staff. Retail is a dying business which offers you 8 hours a week at most so they can skirt round holiday pay, and places even want experience to be a waiter now, clearly ignoring the fact you can't get experience if nobody gives you the job in the first place. I just don't think someone should need a raft of qualifications, five years in higher education and reams of experience to get a basic job paying £6.50 an hour, but employers can be hugely picky these days with a massive unemployed talent pool in front of them.

Even companies providing jobs 'at the bottom' think their job is harder than it is and refuse to give the inexperienced a chance, which is a shame because the flip side of an unknown quantity is they could be really fantastic people. Just because they're unknown doesnt neccessarily mean they'll be bad, they might be extremely good but you'll never know if you don't give them a shot. They might turn out better than 42 year old average experienced Steve.

chrisispringles said:

The trouble is that, at least among people my age, many seem to think they are above working in the jobs at the bottom of the ladder and think that they are entitled to a management role on the basis that they just think they deserve it.

I hear this nonsense quite often but I've not found much evidence to back it up. At my place there was one older gentleman - I'd guess late 50s judging by the length of his work experience - who actually phoned up after applying to ask why we haven't given him the job yet, he then proceeded to tell us why the job is beneath him anyway and how he used to earn five times more before being made redundant. He'd probably fit in well on PistonHeads.

What I would say is if an inexperienced unemployed person cannot get a basic job then whats the harm in applying for everything? I would, I'd just send in applications for every single job from floor cleaner to 'global sales strategist.' Never know, might get lucky.

[martin84]

Gaz. said:

That's page 6 of this thread and the flashpoint for the tone of the thread crashing through the floor.

No, Lost BMW's post which prompted that reply was where the thread crashed. If you act like a you get treated like one

[chrisispringles]

martin84 said:

Unfortunately even jobs 'at the bottom' are looking for some level of experience these days. Young people used to get their first job in sectors like shop work or waiting staff. Retail is a dying business which offers you 8 hours a week at most so they can skirt round holiday pay, and places even want experience to be a waiter now, clearly ignoring the fact you can't get experience if nobody gives you the job in the first place. I just don't think someone should need a raft of qualifications, five years in higher education and reams of experience to get a basic job paying £6.50 an hour, but employers can be hugely picky these days with a massive unemployed talent pool in front of them.

Looking at the jobcentre website, in my area there are plenty of bar, cleaning and sales jobs where experience is not necessary. WRT qualifications, all an employer can judge a young person's ability and willingness to work on are their achievements at school. Schools almost always give out glowing references, even for crap pupils, so they are barely worth the paper that they are written on and they have no employment history. As such, the only way for an employer to get an idea of what a young person may be like as an employee is through their academic achievements.

martin84 said:

Even companies providing jobs 'at the bottom' think their job is harder than it is and refuse to give the inexperienced a chance, which is a shame because the flip side of an unknown quantity is they could be really fantastic people. Just because they're unknown doesnt neccessarily mean they'll be bad, they might be extremely good but you'll never know if you don't give them a shot. They might turn out better than 42 year old average experienced Steve.

Unfortunately my generation are far too used to having smoke blown up arses for achieving mediocrity. For many people my age working is a question of doing enough, not the absolute best you can, be it school work or employment. Whilst there may be some potentially fantastic employees leaving school, there are plenty of crap ones too.

martin84 said:

I hear this nonsense quite often but I've not found much evidence to back it up. At my place there was one older gentleman - I'd guess late 50s judging by the length of his work experience - who actually phoned up after applying to ask why we haven't given him the job yet, he then proceeded to tell us why the job is beneath him anyway and how he used to earn five times more before being made redundant. He'd probably fit in well on PistonHeads.

Seriously? It is pretty obvious in schools. People in my year got laughed at for working at fast food chains because they are, in some way, significantly worse employers than fashionable clothing shops or bars. A few weeks before exam leave I heard a few people complaining about how unfair it was that they couldn't get a management job, despite the fact that none of them had any experience even working and all had poor academic records.

martin84 said:

What I would say is if an inexperienced unemployed person cannot get a basic job then whats the harm in applying for everything? I would, I'd just send in applications for every single job from floor cleaner to 'global sales strategist.' Never know, might get lucky.

That isn't how I'd look at it. I'd say it is better to apply to any job which you have the qualifications for, even if it is something uncool like flipping burgers or cleaning floors. Until people, especially young, accept that no work is below them and take on the ordinary minimum wage jobs, then they have aboslutely no chance of progressing to the better jobs. Unless you have friends in high places, then there are no free rides up to the top; you have to work to get there.

[blueg33]

martin84 said:

Why has Lost BMW not pointed out your inability to spell relevent and beaten you down with abusive lies?

Because you will find it's spelt RELEVANT [facepalm]. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then it always helps not to come across as the "bluntest pencil in the box"

By the way, my spelling is excellent if there are errors its because my typing is crap. You may be irritated to know that my PA does most of my typing in the real world my typing is saved for these forums

martin84 said:

Secondly, experienced candidates only have experience because someone gave them a chance.

Maybe they got there chance because they had made an effort to learn the relevant field and were prepared to start at the bottom. If I take someone on who stuffs up because they don't have the experience then many more people lose their jobs.

As it happens, in all of my businesses I have given out of work youngsters a chance, but they start at the bottom and are given guidance, if they are feckless wasters then they don't last long. I will NOT carry people, they need to work hard, use initiative. If they do that they they can be and are well paid. Even then, if they haven't researched the business, the role etc they have no chance.

[Lost_BMW]

Gaz. said:

That's page 6 of this thread and the flashpoint for the tone of the thread crashing through the floor.

Yes, thanks - also similar stuff my way on the Olympics thread, that I never complained about. But, you're right - tone did crash and I'll take my share of the blame, desist and deal with him privately if he wants to push it.

[davepoth]

blueg33 said:

It can't possibly be a sensible idea to have a blanket rule that says you take children away if the family is living in poverty! That would be a great way to create a generation of dysfunctional people that would make the current social problems seem miniscule

I didn't say poverty - that would preclude the "working poor", and besides the UK definition of poverty is very much a "first world" one.

Benefits as provided by the state should be sufficient to provide all needs for the people it benefits, and no more. It follows that if they have an unfunded child there wouldn't be enough money from their benefits to provide for that child.

Those parents would be aware of that before conceiving the child. If they want to keep it they could always, you know, work.

[blueg33]

davepoth said:

I didn't say poverty - that would preclude the "working poor", and besides the UK definition of poverty is very much a "first world" one.

Benefits as provided by the state should be sufficient to provide all needs for the people it benefits, and no more. It follows that if they have an unfunded child there wouldn't be enough money from their benefits to provide for that child.

Those parents would be aware of that before conceiving the child. If they want to keep it they could always, you know, work.

OK, I agree with your second para

[blueg33]

Lost_BMW said:

martin84 said:

blueg33 said:

I have two applicants - one has managed a business like this before, the other is unemployed and has no track record in a relevant field.

For the sake of my business and my other employees why would I give the second candidate a "chance"?

I would only ever consider the second candidate if the role needed no experience.

Why has Lost BMW not pointed out your inability to spell relevent OMFG - unbelievable, tell us you did this as a joke! See, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant - it might be useful to you. and beaten you down with abusive lies?

Secondly, experienced candidates only have experience because someone gave them a chance.

Lost BMW said:

Lots of abusive, belittling nonsense and most of it not even true.

Don't you have anything better to do than lie about other posters and insult them? Who the hell do you think you are? You gave it out to others as well as me and in far more abusive terms so stop being so wounded and precious. Arguing with you would certainly make anyone feel superior.

Where do you get off speaking to people like they're st on the bottom of your shoe? How many times have you had your face smashed in during your life? At least 50 I would think by now, if this is how you speak to other people. Again, not the first time you've talked about people having their face smashed in, on top of ste about posters not knowing anything about the person they were criticising (or threatening, in your case - is that what you're trying to imply?) and hiding behind keyboards. Perhaps you should practise what you preach. Answer is, broken nose at 12 rescuing my brother from a gang of older yobs, plus broken nose, and two cuts sufficient to leave scars sparring/fighting competitively but, otherwise none - let alone 50 - despite years of boxing, training doormen, working doors etc. If you think because I sound more intelligent than you that I'm some wimp (your "pathetic little man"?) you're fking wrong. What's your credentials for threatening to smash posters' faces in? Maybe look at some of the other threads/posts I visit like the 'what training' thread for some research. If you want to go further down this line I'd suggest we do it privately and by pm for now - enough implied threats and hijacks for now and I don't want a ban for getting publicly involved your threatening mind games. Out of order and way off beam.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Sunday 3rd June 19:27

LostBMW, when you insert bold in people's comments, please add the footnote "my bold". Makes the thread easier to follow.

Ta

[Lost_BMW]

^

My bad?

[blueg33]

Lost_BMW said:

^

My bad?

I am sure t5he phrase "my bad" is a valid defence in a homicide case -

Defendant "the witness said my bad"

Judge "I see, in that case the fact you chopped him into tiny pieces over a period of 6 months using a blunt cocktail stick is perfectly acceptable, case dismissed"

[Halb]

Using the term 'my bad' surely deserves a jolly old good face smashing!?!?





.....not by me obviously...

[Lost_BMW]

Halb said:

Using the term 'my bad' surely deserves a jolly old good face smashing!?!?





.....not by me obviously...

I'm going to get flamed for that aren't I? A weak attempt at a pun on "My bold".

Awaits face smashing. Even did an extra session tonight in readiness but, if I lose and die it's been nice knowing you Halb!

[blueg33]

Lost_BMW said:

I'm going to get flamed for that aren't I? A weak attempt at a pun on "My bold".

Awaits face smashing. Even did an extra session tonight in readiness but, if I lose and die it's been nice knowing you Halb!

Hah, that pun went right over my head. I have put the cocktail stick back in the box

[McClure]

Spent some time with my 90yr old grandmother last week. She was telling me about her father.

He was a tenant farmer before WW1. After getting home from WW1 he had to find another job to support his family (10 kids) and heard that the Dunlop factory was looking for workers. So he walked there on the offchance to ask for a job. The factory was 6 miles from where he lived.

Can't imagine any of today's lazy, feckless losers walking 6 miles just to ask for a job.

[Deva Link]

There aren't any factories left to walk to.

[shoestring7]

Deva Link said:

There aren't any factories left to walk to.

The factories are there, its just that they don't employ thousands of semi and unskilled labourers as in the past.

SS7

[Negative Creep]

The only reason he walked was because he didn't have a phone, a car and public transport would have been minimal.

[cymtriks]

There are many ways to solve this.
However there are also many interlocking problems.

We need to face up to the fact that we have effectively excluded millions from the job market. By setting a minimum wage of 6.08 pounds an hour we have effectively made it illegal for anyone whose skills are worth 6.07 or less to work. By lumbering employers with social issues such as pensions and maternity we have also made a significant number of people earning above the minimum wage not worth the trouble of employing.

We need to stop blaming the wrong people. Governments should be responsible for social issues, not employers. The role of business is to generate wealth, not to ensure future funding for rest homes or be a branch of the NCT.

We need to stop hiding the problems. Is anyone really fooled by the latest wheeze to disguise youth unemployment? Compulsory education up to 18 is this, just as an endless drift in A level grades to justify an endless drift in higher education places is also an attempt to hide the truth. Shockingly we are actually making students pay for being part of a national lie. Actually it is even worse than that as student loans don't even get paid back if they don't earn enough, which a lot of them never will. That's another debt problem building up somewhere. The tax and benefit systems have looked like an attempt to hide the truth for a long time. For example employers NI is just a way to hide the true amount of employee's NI which in turn is just a way to hide the true rate of income tax.

A massive simplification of tax and benefits could be:

• have one rate of income tax
• have one personal allowance
• have one flat rate benefit for everyone over 18
• have benefit top ups over the flat rate dependent on circumstance and how much tax you have paid.

So there will be no more NI, IHT, CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone will get an allowance below which no tax at all will be payable.
Everyone will get something, the flat rate effectively pays housewives and restores the student grant (they get it like everyone else over 18)
If you pay in you qualify for more if you need it (benefit top ups dependent on tax paid)
If you pay nothing in you will still get the universal allowance but that will be all you'll get. You won't get more than this unless you pay something in and extra children won't change this unless you are prepared to wait until they are 18.

It won't happen though as our current generation of politicians are terrified of upsetting anyone. They have promised a golden future, and delivered it with growing debts, for so long that they dare not tell the electorate that this must stop.

We are, ultimately, facing the two major flaws in democracy:

• That the people have realised that they can vote themselves money from the public purse.
• That in any society those who understand important issues are outnumbered by those who do not so politicians find it easier not to face up to them to get votes. Having done this the electorate expect the problems to have gone away when they haven't so the politicians find it harder and harder to actually deal with problems and still get elected.

[Mojocvh]

shoestring7 said:

The factories are there, its just that they don't employ thousands of semi and unskilled labourers as in the past.

SS7

Handy that, lots of luvlly profit for the offshore owners.

[Mojocvh]

cymtriks said:

There are many ways to solve this.
However there are also many interlocking interlacing problems.

We need to face up to the fact that we have effectively excluded millions from the job market. By setting a minimum wage of 6.08 pounds an hour we have effectively made it illegal for anyone whose skills are worth 6.07 or less to work. By lumbering employers with social issues such as pensions and maternity we have also made a significant number of people earning above the minimum wage not worth the trouble of employing.

We need to stop blaming the wrong people. Governments should be responsible for social issues, not employers. The role of business is to generate wealth, not to ensure future funding for rest homes or be a branch of the NCT.

We need to stop hiding the problems. Is anyone really fooled by the latest wheeze to disguise youth unemployment? Compulsory education up to 18 is this, just as an endless drift in A level grades to justify an endless drift in higher education places is also an attempt to hide the truth. Shockingly we are actually making students pay for being part of a national lie. Actually it is even worse than that as student loans don't even get paid back if they don't earn enough, which a lot of them never will. That's another debt problem building up somewhere. The tax and benefit systems have looked like an attempt to hide the truth for a long time. For example employers NI is just a way to hide the true amount of employee's NI which in turn is just a way to hide the true rate of income tax.

A massive simplification of tax and benefits could be:

• have one rate of income tax
• have one personal allowance
• have one flat rate benefit for everyone over 18
• have benefit top ups over the flat rate dependent on circumstance and how much tax you have paid.

So there will be no more NI, IHT, CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone will get an allowance below which no tax at all will be payable.
Everyone will get something, the flat rate effectively pays housewives and restores the student grant (they get it like everyone else over 18)
If you pay in you qualify for more if you need it (benefit top ups dependent on tax paid)
If you pay nothing in you will still get the universal allowance but that will be all you'll get. You won't get more than this unless you pay something in and extra children won't change this unless you are prepared to wait until they are 18.

It won't happen though as our current generation of politicians are terrified of upsetting anyone. They have promised a golden future, and delivered it with growing debts, for so long that they dare not tell the electorate that this must stop.

We are, ultimately, facing the two major flaws in democracy:

• That the people have realised that they can vote themselves money from the public purse.
• That in any society those who understand important issues are outnumbered by those who do not so politicians find it easier not to face up to them to get votes. Having done this the electorate expect the problems to have gone away when they haven't so the politicians find it harder and harder to actually deal with problems and still get elected.

Excellent summation, but I personally [having worked throughout western europe] would have pushed the social responsibility of large corporations, as is taken in countries that still make stuff that people buy in large amounts.