72'000 jobs available, you're all lazy dole dossers.

[lyonspride]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/15737102/firms-offe...

Honestly, the media needs to speak to people who are actually trying to find jobs, because this nonsense only makes it harder for those who have been struggling............. Telling the country that all unemployed people are just lazy, how is THAT supposed to help them find work?

We've got people on social media saying "I wouldn't employ someone who is unemployed"

[randlemarcus]

That's your take on the article? I read it as those who need a job, and are suitably qualified are in a happy place this week, and might get some signup bonuses (note: not better wages). I also noted that the jobs where the squeeze is are not ones that an unskilled worker can just pivot into - HGV, registered MH nurses.

And it has ALWAYS been true that its easier to find a job if you have one, that isn't some social media moaning point. It's also always been true that anyone can find a job, but that job may not cover your outgoings, and in a lot of cases, that fill-in job will actively damage your job seeking ability and earning potential. Thus the need for the Emergency Fund. It's bloody hard to get it in the first place, but its a lovely thing to know you have.

[LargeRed]

"Honestly, the media needs to speak to people who are actually trying to find jobs......."

You think the SUN is media, no wonder you are finding it difficult.

[lyonspride]

LargeRed said:

"Honestly, the media needs to speak to people who are actually trying to find jobs......."

You think the SUN is media, no wonder you are finding it difficult.

Well they get their "news" from the same newswire as everyone else.

randlemarcus said:

And it has ALWAYS been true that its easier to find a job if you have one, that isn't some social media moaning point. It's also always been true that anyone can find a job, but that job may not cover your outgoings,

Yeah the whole "anyone can find a job" thing, it's simply not true, you're not going to get a job stacking shelves if you've got 10 years management experience, there are thousands of people experienced in that sort of work, they're not going to hire someone who may only be there for 3 weeks.

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 5th August 13:37

[Muzzer79]

lyonspride said:

Yeah the whole "anyone can find a job" thing, it's simply not true, you're not going to get a job stacking shelves if you've got 10 years management experience, there are thousands of people experienced in that sort of work, they're not going to hire someone who may only be there for 3 weeks.

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 5th August 13:37

I don't think you're understanding the scale of the recruitment problem.

From my perspective, I'd take anyone at the moment who is over 16, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't on drugs and has a small modicum of common sense.

There's 85 positions available, all above minimum wage and if you don't like what I'm offering, there's a multitude of local companies offering similar.

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

[clockworks]

lyonspride said:

Yeah the whole "anyone can find a job" thing, it's simply not true, you're not going to get a job stacking shelves if you've got 10 years management experience, there are thousands of people experienced in that sort of work, they're not going to hire someone who may only be there for 3 weeks.

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 5th August 13:37

That's not really true anymore.

I retired early from IT, got bored, and fancied a part time job.
A new supermarket was opening locally, and I liked the idea of working in the petrol station. Applied, interviewed, got taken on.

I'd never done a job like that since I was a kid, and was half-expecting to get turned down.
It wasn't like they had a shortage of applicants either, as where I live, supermarket jobs were highly prized 10 years ago.

I did once get turned down for a job in insurance when I first left school, as I was "over-qualified" with some A levels. Different times.
I ended up working as a bus conductor for London Transport for a couple of years until I got into IT.

[lyonspride]

Muzzer79 said:

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Going into roles "below" your previous one, is a mistake, it often leads to a supervisor or team lead being intimidated by you, i've made mistake and i'll be very lucky to stop it damaging my future career prospects.

The agencies are making it very hard to get into a role you haven't explicitly done before.

I don't think anyone really enjoys being furloughed, this is a myth being pedalled by people who think they're better and more important, because they got to WFH instead.

As an engineer, why would I want to do shift work, with zero flexibility, no benefits, bare minimum pension, treated like a pleb, thousands of £ in qualifications...... When I could do a basic office job, 9-5, with no qualifications required, and earn he same money?

I also won't do "field service", because I know too many people who are paid for 7.5 hours a day, but end up spending 12 hours on the job and sleeping in a van over night. If you're doing 12 hours work for 7.5 hours pay, you're basically getting minimum wage.

[bearman68]

lyonspride said:

As an engineer, why would I want to do shift work, with zero flexibility, no benefits, bare minimum pension, treated like a pleb, thousands of £ in qualifications...... When I could do a basic office job, 9-5, with no qualifications required, and earn he same money?

I also won't do "field service", because I know too many people who are paid for 7.5 hours a day, but end up spending 12 hours on the job and sleeping in a van over night. If you're doing 12 hours work for 7.5 hours pay, you're basically getting minimum wage.

As an engineer with both hands on and extensive management experience, at the moment I dream about earning minimum wage. Bye Eck, I could afford a new cardboard box.
Times are tough at the moment.

[megaphone]

Muzzer79 said:

I don't think you're understanding the scale of the recruitment problem.

From my perspective, I'd take anyone at the moment who is over 16, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't on drugs and has a small modicum of common sense.

There's 85 positions available, all above minimum wage and if you don't like what I'm offering, there's a multitude of local companies offering similar.

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Maybe you need to pay more? 'Above minimum wage' is still low paid.

[Condi]

lyonspride said:

As an engineer, why would I want to do shift work, with zero flexibility, no benefits, bare minimum pension, treated like a pleb, thousands of £ in qualifications...... When I could do a basic office job, 9-5, with no qualifications required, and earn he same money?

Shift has it's pros and cons. My average week is 3 days long.

[Muzzer79]

lyonspride said:

Muzzer79 said:

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Going into roles "below" your previous one, is a mistake, it often leads to a supervisor or team lead being intimidated by you, i've made mistake and i'll be very lucky to stop it damaging my future career prospects.

The agencies are making it very hard to get into a role you haven't explicitly done before.

I don't think anyone really enjoys being furloughed, this is a myth being pedalled by people who think they're better and more important, because they got to WFH instead.

As an engineer, why would I want to do shift work, with zero flexibility, no benefits, bare minimum pension, treated like a pleb, thousands of £ in qualifications...... When I could do a basic office job, 9-5, with no qualifications required, and earn he same money?

I also won't do "field service", because I know too many people who are paid for 7.5 hours a day, but end up spending 12 hours on the job and sleeping in a van over night. If you're doing 12 hours work for 7.5 hours pay, you're basically getting minimum wage.

This isn’t about what job you ‘want’ to do,

This is about jobs being available and you being eligible to do them.

They are and you are.

If you turn up at an agency looking for work in my area and you have two legs and arms, a modicum of a brain and a clean record, you will get work if you want it.

[Muzzer79]

megaphone said:

Muzzer79 said:

I don't think you're understanding the scale of the recruitment problem.

From my perspective, I'd take anyone at the moment who is over 16, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't on drugs and has a small modicum of common sense.

There's 85 positions available, all above minimum wage and if you don't like what I'm offering, there's a multitude of local companies offering similar.

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Maybe you need to pay more? 'Above minimum wage' is still low paid.

Pay is driven by economics.

If my customers pay me more, I’ll pay my staff more.

At present, I am paying the going rate, which is rapidly rising due to labour supply not matching demand. I pass that on to my customers.

However, the staff are not out there - we are having to entice people out of their existing jobs because unemployed staff (who want to work) do not exist….

[megaphone]

Muzzer79 said:

megaphone said:

Muzzer79 said:

I don't think you're understanding the scale of the recruitment problem.

From my perspective, I'd take anyone at the moment who is over 16, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't on drugs and has a small modicum of common sense.

There's 85 positions available, all above minimum wage and if you don't like what I'm offering, there's a multitude of local companies offering similar.

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Maybe you need to pay more? 'Above minimum wage' is still low paid.

Pay is driven by economics.

If my customers pay me more, I’ll pay my staff more.

At present, I am paying the going rate, which is rapidly rising due to labour supply not matching demand. I pass that on to my customers.

However, the staff are not out there - we are having to entice people out of their existing jobs because unemployed staff (who want to work) do not exist….

You need to pay better wages to get staff, it's as simple as that, people won't work for poverty wages. Either put your prices up or, take less yourself. If that doesn't work then may be you need to look at your business model.

[FNG]

Muzzer79 said:

Pay is driven by economics.

If my customers pay me more, I’ll pay my staff more.

At present, I am paying the going rate, which is rapidly rising due to labour supply not matching demand. I pass that on to my customers.

However, the staff are not out there - we are having to entice people out of their existing jobs because unemployed staff (who want to work) do not exist….

I thought it went that you charge what the customer will pay, and pay your workers the lowest amount you're comfortable with, and you get the middle bit to pay your costs and overheads, and take a profit.

In which case if your customers paid more, you'd get more in the middle.

In this case you need to pay more, so either you get less in the middle or your prices rise.

It's a hugely rare business owner who finds he can charge more for a product, so then pays his workers markedly above industry rate. Usually it goes on aston martins and a better golf club membership

[Muzzer79]

megaphone said:

Muzzer79 said:

megaphone said:

Muzzer79 said:

I don't think you're understanding the scale of the recruitment problem.

From my perspective, I'd take anyone at the moment who is over 16, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't on drugs and has a small modicum of common sense.

There's 85 positions available, all above minimum wage and if you don't like what I'm offering, there's a multitude of local companies offering similar.

From what I'm seeing, people don't want the jobs available for one of the following reasons:

• It's 'beneath' what they were doing before

• They are hoping to get another job in the same field as they had before

• They're on furlough and enjoying that very nicely thank you

• Shift work, etc doesn't fit with their lifestyle.

However, I will say that it seems that the reason I can't fill most of the positions is because people have jobs already. There just isn't the headcount available out there.

Edited by Muzzer79 on Thursday 5th August 14:22

Maybe you need to pay more? 'Above minimum wage' is still low paid.

Pay is driven by economics.

If my customers pay me more, I’ll pay my staff more.

At present, I am paying the going rate, which is rapidly rising due to labour supply not matching demand. I pass that on to my customers.

However, the staff are not out there - we are having to entice people out of their existing jobs because unemployed staff (who want to work) do not exist….

You need to pay better wages to get staff, it's as simple as that, people won't work for poverty wages. Either put your prices up or, take less yourself. If that doesn't work then may be you need to look at your business model.

Thank you for the business tip.

Just one thing - Please tell me how you've concluded that I'm paying "poverty wages"?

[Sheets Tabuer]

It's amusing on the local facebook group when we have agencies advertising for HGV, pickers, packers, fork lift, admin, and other jobs, often with no experience necessary followed by a post from someone asking if anyone knows of any jobs going.

They may want a job but they don't want those jobs.

I imagine if an advert came up saying they wanted people to sit on the sofa all day chatting to their mates on snapchat they'd be inundated.

[Northernboy]

lyonspride said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/15737102/firms-offe...

Honestly, the media needs to speak to people who are actually trying to find jobs, because this nonsense only makes it harder for those who have been struggling............. Telling the country that all unemployed people are just lazy, how is THAT supposed to help them find work?

We've got people on social media saying "I wouldn't employ someone who is unemployed"

My brother’s a qualified engineer with decades of experience and while between “proper” jobs worked delivering for Amazon.

Another guy I know (another engineer) did a month’s work on the harvest last year.

There are plenty of jobs where staff turnover is large enough anyway that they aren’t going to be upset if the cardiac surgeon pulling pints moves on in a few months.

Yes, there are some jobs where they want a bit more certainty, but given the skills shortages in all sorts of areas at the moment I can’t see that a well tuned-out keen professional is going to struggle to find at least something which gets them by.

[Northernboy]

lyonspride said:

As an engineer, why would I want to do shift work, with zero flexibility, no benefits, bare minimum pension, treated like a pleb, thousands of £ in qualifications...... When I could do a basic office job, 9-5, with no qualifications required, and earn he same money?

I also won't do "field service", because I know too many people who are paid for 7.5 hours a day, but end up spending 12 hours on the job and sleeping in a van over night. If you're doing 12 hours work for 7.5 hours pay, you're basically getting minimum wage.

Hang on, at first you said that it was wrong to say that people could easily find work, but now you’re saying that you just find the available jobs beneath you.

That’s not the same thing at all.

[okgo]

OP hasn't quite woken up to the fact that the common denominator in all of the issues I've seen in his posting, is him. There's a few like that in the jobs forum, it's always the fault of something/someone else that they're not getting the result they want.

[Northernboy]

okgo said:

OP hasn't quite woken up to the fact that the common denominator in all of the issues I've seen in his posting, is him. There's a few like that in the jobs forum, it's always the fault of something/someone else that they're not getting the result they want.

I’ve had a bit of a read back through the previous posts and the impression they give is of someone being extremely choosy who maybe can’t afford to be.

OP, what’s the story? You’re an actual engineer who is out of work and can’t get any job at all, or as per the post above, you’re not applying for some jobs as you feel that you shouldn’t have to, as you’re better than that?