But There Are No Jobs
Discussion
A few years back I worked for www.edsuk.co.uk for 2 years dealing with SME's
but never any huge blue chip corporations.
but never any huge blue chip corporations.
Tonberry said:
It very much seems (as some posters have confirmed) as though attitude is everything.
Hmm, dunno so much about that, to me it just shows the power of networking. It's easier to get a job through people you know/semi know via a completely unrelated website, than it is going through the normal channels and applying with all the other 1000 drones. 
vsonix said:
Hmm, dunno so much about that, to me it just shows the power of networking. It's easier to get a job through people you know/semi know via a completely unrelated website, than it is going through the normal channels and applying with all the other 1000 drones.
Agreed. I'm 38, have been lucky enough to be working since I was 15 (part time through school and uni) and not once have I got a job through a "blind" recruitment process....which means that anyone who does is fighting a losing battle - all those jobs I got through contacts probably had a bunch of other blind candidates show up and leave disappointed.
Also, I've skipped a few pages of this thread, but my opinion of the overqualified issue is that it's simply managers not wanting to be shown up by their minions (sub-optimisation problem). I doubt the shareholders prefer to have grunts working for them, all things being equal.
Potentially in this climate over qualified is either desperate for a role at any level so the moment a role they are "just" qualified to do comes up they will be off. Alternatively it's someone who doesn't want a high flying role all they want is a cushy role they could do in their sleep that will see them with enough money to fund their lifestyle.
I'm not sure either appeals to an employer, the sit it out or the underachiever.
I'm not sure either appeals to an employer, the sit it out or the underachiever.
Engineer1 said:
Potentially in this climate over qualified is either desperate for a role at any level so the moment a role they are "just" qualified to do comes up they will be off. Alternatively it's someone who doesn't want a high flying role all they want is a cushy role they could do in their sleep that will see them with enough money to fund their lifestyle.
I'm not sure either appeals to an employer, the sit it out or the underachiever.
I think you may be flattering 'employers'. I'm not sure either appeals to an employer, the sit it out or the underachiever.
This will no doubt be cited as another example of my poor attitude, but a large proportion of the people I have been interviewed by over the last few years would have trouble understanding the concepts of the 'sit it out' and the 'underachiever', going solely on their ability to string a sentence together, come up with a list of interview questions which are relevant to the role or, in one case, button their shirt properly.
When we are discussing employers in the sense of the people managing the application/interview/selection processwe should remember that there are two different types.
Type A (this will be me fairly soon hopefully) Wants somebody who can get the job done, who will turn up for work on time every day, can learn quickly, and who will have the best interests of the firm at heart. This type of emplpoyer really isn't too concerned about what the person did before unless it is an obvious contra-indication to one of the above, he/she is more concerned about the future.
Type B Is actually an employee him/herself. While having the requirements mentioned above in mind (theoretically) are really nowhere near as bothered about finding the right person, and may well have a completly different (secret?) agenda. Nothing else could possibly explain the large numbers of young women of marrying/child bearing age who seem to find jobs where the people selecting them are not too bothered about the fact that they will soon leave either permanently or for periods of maternity leave (which I suspect for the firm is even worse).
Type A (this will be me fairly soon hopefully) Wants somebody who can get the job done, who will turn up for work on time every day, can learn quickly, and who will have the best interests of the firm at heart. This type of emplpoyer really isn't too concerned about what the person did before unless it is an obvious contra-indication to one of the above, he/she is more concerned about the future.
Type B Is actually an employee him/herself. While having the requirements mentioned above in mind (theoretically) are really nowhere near as bothered about finding the right person, and may well have a completly different (secret?) agenda. Nothing else could possibly explain the large numbers of young women of marrying/child bearing age who seem to find jobs where the people selecting them are not too bothered about the fact that they will soon leave either permanently or for periods of maternity leave (which I suspect for the firm is even worse).
singlecoil said:
Nothing else could possibly explain the large numbers of young women of marrying/child bearing age who seem to find jobs where the people selecting them are not too bothered about the fact that they will soon leave either permanently or for periods of maternity leave (which I suspect for the firm is even worse).
.... apart from the fact it's distinctly unlawful to discriminate against women of child-bearing age.But I agree with your sentiment, the whole maternity leave thing is a massive p.i.t.a if you need committed and trained employees rather than just grunts who can be replaced on 15 minutes notice.
Ozzie Osmond said:
.... apart from the fact it's distinctly unlawful to discriminate against women of child-bearing age.
Good grief, I hope you don't think I would ever do that! And not just because it would be illegal, it would also be immoral and unethical. It's just that women (or men, of course) below the age of 35-40 are unlikely to have the level of experience needed.singlecoil said:
When we are discussing employers in the sense of the people managing the application/interview/selection processwe should remember that there are two different types.
Type A (this will be me fairly soon hopefully) Wants somebody who can get the job done, who will turn up for work on time every day, can learn quickly, and who will have the best interests of the firm at heart. This type of emplpoyer really isn't too concerned about what the person did before unless it is an obvious contra-indication to one of the above, he/she is more concerned about the future.
Type B Is actually an employee him/herself. While having the requirements mentioned above in mind (theoretically) are really nowhere near as bothered about finding the right person, and may well have a completly different (secret?) agenda. Nothing else could possibly explain the large numbers of young women of marrying/child bearing age who seem to find jobs where the people selecting them are not too bothered about the fact that they will soon leave either permanently or for periods of maternity leave (which I suspect for the firm is even worse).
This is very true, and it's why I've always been drawn to working in smaller organisations, with a more entrepreneurial outlook or start-up vibe going on. I find work so much more stimulating when I feel like I'm at the knife-edge, I tried working in bigger companies but being one of 250 employees on a single open-plan floor of a ten-story building where everyone recognises the boss but is too scared to talk to him, everything has metrics including toilet breaks and the nature of the work only ever varies every 24 months or so when you shift department. Nearly drove me loopy, especially once shift patterns were involved. Trouble is with the economy the way it is, smaller businesses aren't really hiring so much and the ones that are can barely afford to pay you. Type A (this will be me fairly soon hopefully) Wants somebody who can get the job done, who will turn up for work on time every day, can learn quickly, and who will have the best interests of the firm at heart. This type of emplpoyer really isn't too concerned about what the person did before unless it is an obvious contra-indication to one of the above, he/she is more concerned about the future.
Type B Is actually an employee him/herself. While having the requirements mentioned above in mind (theoretically) are really nowhere near as bothered about finding the right person, and may well have a completly different (secret?) agenda. Nothing else could possibly explain the large numbers of young women of marrying/child bearing age who seem to find jobs where the people selecting them are not too bothered about the fact that they will soon leave either permanently or for periods of maternity leave (which I suspect for the firm is even worse).
spaximus said:
rover 623gsi said:
spaximus said:
At the moment I have a vacany for a warehouse manger in North London, in the advert it says attention to detail is essential and asks for experiance and a CV with salary expectations, Not one of the 50 applicants have given salary expectations and then they wonder why they will not get an interview. If they cannot read an advert and respond correctly how would they do the job.
I've never applied for a job that doesn't give a salary. If I see a job asking for salary expectations I just think it's an employer who is tkaing the piss and hoing to get someone on the cheap. How can you not know the value of the job you want done? Put a salary in the Ad and you will get more - and better - applicants. imho...
I was unemployed last November, and I don't think I applied at any job without a pay stated.
You will get the position filled, but you will excluding some of the best candidates before you've even started.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff