The first "Want to Work" Masterclass delivered at The Amex

[public school boy]

Think about it mate, why would Amex take someone on who has the equivalent of 4 A levels for an £8 an hour data processing role, when they could easily get someone thicker / simpler / younger who they know will do exactly as they are told?

I think this attitude is part of the problem. If a job is there APPLY FOR IT. If a company can get a person with excellent qualifications who has experience and is willing to work for 8 pounds an hour, they would be nuts not to hire them. If an employee shows great promise they will get promoted. People should stop thinking that they are too good for certain jobs. Once you have a job it doesn't mean that you have to stop applying for other. Potential employers look more favourably on applicants that are currently employed as it shows that the applicant is capable of working.

 

[public school boy]

Don't forget the reason a lot of people cannot afford this is because of the other benefits they receive through not working. Rent paid, council tax allowances, a regular -- albeit low -- income. You get more than your 'dole cheque' when you're unemployed. If you have children it's even more. Which is why some people cannot settle for minimum wage. A family would require a lot more than this.

This is why system needs changing. It's going to cost the country/tax payer less if the wage the person could earn by working, even if it is a low wage, is then deducted from the benefits they receive whilst not working.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't forget the reason a lot of people cannot afford this is because of the other benefits they receive through not working. Rent paid, council tax allowances, a regular -- albeit low -- income. You get more than your 'dole cheque' when you're unemployed. If you have children it's even more. Which is why some people cannot settle for minimum wage. A family would require a lot more than this.

You're right and wrong at the same time ! People benefit from all those extras if the household income is below a certain level. Let's not confuse that with the situation where two people work to keep the household bills paid and when one loses their job they still only get JSA ( and only for six months ). This type of situation is equally distressing and stressful - I know because I was in that situation last year for three months and am about to be again. Despite paying a large amount of tax between myself and my partner we're entitled to nearly bugger all when one of us loses our job. FFS, you can't even get free dentistry on income related JSA !!!!

 

[Kumquat]

I think this attitude is part of the problem. If a job is there APPLY FOR IT. If a company can get a person with excellent qualifications who has experience and is willing to work for 8 pounds an hour, they would be nuts not to hire them. If an employee shows great promise they will get promoted. People should stop thinking that they are too good for certain jobs. Once you have a job it doesn't mean that you have to stop applying for other. Potential employers look more favourably on applicants that are currently employed as it shows that the applicant is capable of working.

I think the point Commander is making is that businesse don't want overqualified people because they know they won't stay long. But I agree with your broader point about people not being prepared to do jobs they think beneath them.

 

[Commander]

While I'm sure you personally don't have that attitude but the fact that recruitment agencies and some employers do absolutely stinks. It costs them no more to hire, in this example, US and given his mature years he's likely to be much more reliable - he's less likely to call in sick or throw a sickie, more likely to want / need the job for financial reasons so less likely just to jack it in, have more experience of working the the behaviour that is expected. "Too experienced" or "over qualified" are two phrases employers and their agents should prosecuted for using / adhering to.

I'm not sure I agree. Why is he going to be more reliable? What's going to happen when the market he was in before picks up and he gets offered a job as a mortgage advisor again? He'll be off like a shot. Also, the Manager of the £8 an hour data entry team is probably in his early 20's and has a team of 18-20 year olds under him. Why would he take on a 50 year old man for this team? It's going to mess up the dynamics of the team, and he is going to feel consistently undermined by him. Rightly or wrongly, if he can get another 20 year old to do the job and slot into the team, that is who he is going to go for. That may be age discrimination, and it may be illegal, but it is what happens.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'm not sure I agree. Why is he going to be more reliable? What's going to happen when the market he was in before picks up and he gets offered a job as a mortgage advisor again? He'll be off like a shot. Also, the Manager of the £8 an hour data entry team is probably in his early 20's and has a team of 18-20 year olds under him. Why would he take on a 50 year old man for this team? It's going to mess up the dynamics of the team, and he is going to feel consistently undermined by him. Rightly or wrongly, if he can get another 20 year old to do the job and slot into the team, that is who he is going to go for. That may be age discrimination, and it may be illegal, but it is what happens.

I manage people older than me and I manage people younger than me - I really couldn't give a monkeys what age they are. As for team dynamics - it would be a poor manager who relied on age to create the dynamic. Agree with you age discrimination happens which is wrong. When I interview I now favour people who are out of work - I know they REALLY want the job and are generally not looking for a career stepping stone. Having been in that situation I know how shit it really is.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I am about to take voluntary redundancy where I work and recently as part of the process they provided a course on the best ways to get work so hope some of what I say from what they told us will help.

1) Do not just reply to a job vacancy with a generic CV. Make sure you tailor the CV to pick the relevant experience and qualifications to the job spec. Think this has been said above.

2) This was the most important advice. NEVER JUST REPLY TO THE ADVERT WITHOUT PHONING FIRST. Find a contact name and number. Call them up and say the following: "I am interested in the job you have advertised and just wanted to make sure a) it's still available and b) discuss briefly what skills and the sort of person you are looking for." Then as they are describing the skills and attributes, chip in with examples e.g. "Customer service skills? Yes, I worked for this company once and needed customer service skills to do…..etc"

3) At the end of the conversation if you think the job is for you, say "I really think this is for me, I'll send my CV/application in [tell them when you will send it]" and then say. "When would be a good time to call to discuss it once you have seen it?"

The reason for doing all this is simple. Ten/Fifteen years ago companies would read CVs because most jobs were advertised in newspapers and they got a certain amount of replies. Now as most jobs are advertised online, companies receive thousands and thousands of generic applications, many from people who don't even know they are sending them because they have used an online recruitment agency to throw their CVs at any jobs in certain sectors. Companies use keywords to filter out a shortlist so the simple truth is that many times you will not get a reply because a human being has never even read your application. It's harsh but true and in reality they simply can't reply to every application.

The approach above may seem a bit pushy but I have a friend who was out of work for a year and the second time he tried this approach he got a job. It makesthem read the application and they will remember you when they do.

Hope this advice helps and as other said, best of luck mate.

More companies should go back to advertising the jobs through the newspaper, and send out proper paper applications in the post or make it available for download. Applicants should then fill out the application form. I know it sounds really old fashioned, but I feel companies would find a better applicant than relying on an agency.

If companies are getting overloaded with CV's, they are all not going to follow the same format, so they probably don't read half of them anyway like you say, and just trash them.

I know its not easy when you need to keep applying and in Uncle Spielberg would be a complete nightmare.

 

[Commander]

I manage people older than me and I manage people younger than me - I really couldn't give a monkeys what age they are. As for team dynamics - it would be a poor manager who relied on age to create the dynamic. Agree with you age discrimination happens which is wrong. When I interview I now favour people who are out of work - I know they REALLY want the job and are generally not looking for a career stepping stone. Having been in that situation I know how shit it really is.

Yep, but the guy managing a team of data entry clerks is hardly going to be a brilliant, experienced, polished manager, is he? He's probably a 23 year old who was good at data entry. That's my point, for him, he's going to take the easy option, which is to take someone one who is similar to the rest of the team, rather than take a punt on someone completely different.

At my old company two of us interviewed a 50 year old to replace one of the consultants on the team (7 of us, all 20-30 ish) who was leaving. He was good, and would have done well, and billed the company money. But when we went to the Director and said we were happy with him and asked him to do a 2nd interview with him, he said no way. Why take on someone who will completely change the dynamics of the team, when you can get someone else just as good, who wont? It may not be legal, and it may not be right, but that's the way it is.

 

[Commander]

More companies should go back to advertising the jobs through the newspaper, and send out proper paper applications in the post or make it available for download. Applicants should then fill out the application form. I know it sounds really old fashioned, but I feel companies would find a better applicant than relying on an agency.

If companies are getting overloaded with CV's, they are all not going to follow the same format, so they probably don't read half of them anyway like you say, and just trash them.

I know its not easy when you need to keep applying and in Uncle Spielberg would be a complete nightmare.

I really think this sums up a lot of people's problem in job seeking. You think more companies should make it easier for you to apply to their jobs by not using an agency. But the company looking to employ someone don't give a shit how easy it is to apply, it's not about what they can offer you, it's about what you can offer them. They don't have time to place adverts and go through hundreds of applications to make it easier for you, that's why they use an agency in the first place.

Time and time again I see it. "I'm looking for this", "I want to do this", "This is what I'm looking for" = Wrong attitude.

"This is what I can offer your company". "This is how I can solve your recruitment problem". "This is what I will bring to your organisation" = Right attitude.

In short, "Please give me a job" is wrong, "I will bring this to your organisation" is right.

 

[Simster]

I really think this sums up a lot of people's problem in job seeking. You think more companies should make it easier for you to apply to their jobs by not using an agency. But the company looking to employ someone don't give a shit how easy it is to apply, it's not about what they can offer you, it's about what you can offer them. They don't have time to place adverts and go through hundreds of applications to make it easier for you, that's why they use an agency in the first place.

Time and time again I see it. "I'm looking for this", "I want to do this", "This is what I'm looking for" = Wrong attitude.

"This is what I can offer your company". "This is how I can solve your recruitment problem". "This is what I will bring to your organisation" = Right attitude.

In short, "Please give me a job" is wrong, "I will bring this to your organisation" is right.

In which case, you haven't read what [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] wrote, which was: "I know it sounds really old fashioned, but I feel companies would find a better applicant than relying on an agency."

And he has a point. Companies go to recruitment agents because it is CHEAPER than running a recruitment process themselves. I don't think they know or want to know what process recruitment agents actually use themselves, which is just as well considering the number of shithouse spivs there are in recruitment.

 

[public school boy]

There is no such thing as being over qualified for a job.. Very interesting as this comes from a young lady who has just taken a job in a shop whilst she is taking time off from her university so she can raise enough money to complete her training to become a Surgeon. she told me that she had applied for hundreds of jobs on line and by going into town handing out her CV. I popped into our local Post office and asked the manager there if he would employ a person who had all the qualifications under the sun for a job that was just to stick stamps on envelopes. He said YES if he liked the person and felt that he was capable of doing the job and could prove that he really wanted it.
I think and this comes from my own experience, it is down to the applicant to sell themselves to the potential employer and show that they really DO want the job and would be interested in progressing up the company should other opportunities arise. Being told that one is over qualified for the job is a nice and polite way of being told that you are just not wanted.

 

[Commander]

In which case, you haven't read what [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] wrote, which was: "I know it sounds really old fashioned, but I feel companies would find a better applicant than relying on an agency."

And he has a point. Companies go to recruitment agents because it is CHEAPER than running a recruitment process themselves. I don't think they know or want to know what process recruitment agents actually use themselves, which is just as well considering the number of shithouse spivs there are in recruitment.

Yeah OK, I was maybe jumping to the conclusion that bashlsdir was more thinking more along the lines of the application process being easier for him. Because that is a lot of people who cant find work's attitude.

But as much as companies go to agencies because it's easier, and maybe even cheaper than doing it themselves, candidates go to angencies for the same reason. There is a lot of laziness involved there. If you are an employer looking to recruit someone and you get 10 CV's from an agency, all pretty much the same, but you also get one from someone who has bothered to look up the company, find out what they do, and offer their services to you directly, then who are you going to be more keen on? The 10 candidates who you are going to have to pay an agency an extra 20% for, or the one who doesn't cost anything extra, and has shown far more hunger and initiative than the other 10?

If I wanted to move jobs now I'd use an agency, because it's less hassle, and I cant be arsed to go out and find my own job. But If I was sat at home out of work and desperate for a job, I wouldn't go near an agency. I'd use my time to do exactly what an agency does, and I'd be more attractive than their candidates because of it. What do you think agencies do? (not you personally) It's not rocket science.

There is no such thing as being over qualified for a job.. Very interesting as this comes from a young lady who has just taken a job in a shop whilst she is taking time off from her university so she can raise enough money to complete her training to become a Surgeon. she told me that she had applied for hundreds of jobs on line and by going into town handing out her CV. I popped into our local Post office and asked the manager there if he would employ a person who had all the qualifications under the sun for a job that was just to stick stamps on envelopes. He said YES if he liked the person and felt that he was capable of doing the job and could prove that he really wanted it.
I think and this comes from my own experience, it is down to the applicant to sell themselves to the potential employer and show that they really DO want the job and would be interested in progressing up the company should other opportunities arise. Being told that one is over qualified for the job is a nice and polite way of being told that you are just not wanted.

Kind of agree, but that then again suggests that if you make 200 job applications and get 0 replies, then the problem isn't that you are over qualified, it's that your applications are poor.

 

[Kumquat]

There is no such thing as being over qualified for a job.. Very interesting as this comes from a young lady who has just taken a job in a shop whilst she is taking time off from her university so she can raise enough money to complete her training to become a Surgeon. she told me that she had applied for hundreds of jobs on line and by going into town handing out her CV. I popped into our local Post office and asked the manager there if he would employ a person who had all the qualifications under the sun for a job that was just to stick stamps on envelopes. He said YES if he liked the person and felt that he was capable of doing the job and could prove that he really wanted it.
I think and this comes from my own experience, it is down to the applicant to sell themselves to the potential employer and show that they really DO want the job and would be interested in progressing up the company should other opportunities arise. Being told that one is over qualified for the job is a nice and polite way of being told that you are just not wanted.

Agree with that hence the advice i was given at th ecours ei mentioned to contact the employer and chatw ith them and sell yourself, not just send in a CV and hope for the best. You have to be more proactive these days.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

From around 200 applications in the last 2 years.

Responses 0

Net result - f*** all. Not a reply, barely an ackowledgement and no offer or even interviews.

Sorry, I have great sympathy with those out of work, but this is at best, a massive melodramatic exaggeration, and more probably a complete fabrication.

 

[Commander]

Sorry, I have great sympathy with those out of work, but this is at best, a massive melodramatic exaggeration, and more probably a complete fabrication.

That's pretty much what I thought as well, but didn't want to say it.

But if it really is true, I believe they say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over an over again and expecting different results. I think I'd have to agree with that in this case.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Sorry, I have great sympathy with those out of work, but this is at best, a massive melodramatic exaggeration, and more probably a complete fabrication.

If you say so.

 

[Aadam]

Sorry, I have great sympathy with those out of work, but this is at best, a massive melodramatic exaggeration, and more probably a complete fabrication.

Really? Two years out of work, that's only two CVs a week sent out. If anything it could be more...

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I have not been out of work I have been plying my trade which has seen numbers fall from 35000 in 2008 to around 8000 now. I have been looking for part time work to supplement my income or a new profession both of which have proved to be impossible. I have easily sent out 200 applications and had no response. That is a fact and I am sure people of my age and circumstances would agree with what I have said. As it is I would rather continue with my trade and get some part time work as I know my onions and its what I have done for 20 years.

 

[Beach Hut]

There is a part time job in Shoreham at that shop that replaced Woolworths if interested.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Really? Two years out of work, that's only two CVs a week sent out. If anything it could be more...

You've missed the point. I'm not suggesting for a second that sending out 2 CVs a week is anything out of the ordinary. I simply fail to believe that this poster has sent out 200 applications for work, and recieved zero responses to them. You'd need to be deliberately sabotaging your own applications to manage that hit rate.