Employer led culture

[43021HST]

I'm completely sick of this employer led culture, this is all Thatchers legacy with her 'the managements right to manage' mantra, more like the managements right to exploit.

My generation (I'm 20 by the way) is probably one of the most stressed generations, in school we were told our life expectancy is most likely to be shorter than the baby boomer generation (people born in the 1950s) because of stress. It's been predicted we'll have on average about 30 different jobs in our life times and so was told we need to prepare to be flexible workers. (We were honestly told this in a school assembly in year 7, this taught me to hate employment from an early age. So far I've had about 5 different jobs, 5 down, another 25 to go.

Most of my friends stress themselves out silly over finding a job. You know why? Because employers no matter how crappy the job, ask you to jump through as many hurdles as possible just for that one crappy zero hours job in a supermarket. Today I was applying to be a Christmas temp at M&S and had to fill out quite a taxing questionnaire, I'll tell you it wasn't worth bothering with, just for some crap job. It's unbelievably depressing. My uncle was telling me about the days when you could just walk into Asda and get a job there and then.

I've known friends who've been earning an apprentice wage (£2.73 an hour) and worked until 2 in the morning, bearing in mind they were 17 at the time, and legally you're not allowed to work past 10 at night. They did 70 hours a week and only made £100, the manager refused to pay them the rest. To top it all off once the apprenticeship period expired, they were sacked because the manager didn't want to pay them a proper employees wage!

I worked a zero hours job at Dominos recently for approximately 3 months, the worst thing was having to schmooze the manager into giving your more hours that week. Zeros contracts work by if you're one of the managers favourites he'll give you more hours. There's nothing more embarrassing than having to beg your manager for extra hours because you have urgent things to pay for, so I quit after 3 months, I got sick of being exploited and working at Dominos really gave me anxiety problems, knowing I had work that day would seriously put a downer on the whole day.

The older generations never had it so easy, the unions were strong, no such thing as zero hour contracts and you could walk out of one crappy part time job and into another.

So I left the wonderful world of work to go back into education, studying IT is one of the best decisions I've ever made. My mental health feels so much better now I'm not working. Message to kids in school, stay in education as long as possible.

Another thing that annoys me is that a good portion of my IT course goes into CV filling, with such subjects as employability skills as requested for by employers; this teaches you how to make a CV and how to 'enhance your communication skills' what this entails is making us write laborious essays 1000 words + on how to conduct yourself during an interview, tedious is an understatement. The lecturer assures us this is how you get the 'competitive edge' on the job marketplace. No it doesn't give you a competitive edge because this is taught in some form or another in most curriculum's, all it serves to do is drive up competition for that one measly job and make life harder for ordinary people.

One of the worst aspects of employer led culture is that it will drive out the genuinely skilled people in favour of the droids with a really good CV and interview skills but will probably have little or no expertise in the skill area that the job requires.

I will use myself as an example, My CV for the job at Dominos according to the manager was 'impressive' and so where my interview skills, this was from using methods I'd been taught in school. But when it came to actually doing the job, I was incompetent and stressed purely from how fast paced the job is. I couldn't cope. But this is progress.

Tories and new Labour talk about the right to work, and 'clamping' down on scroungers. But I can seriously see why people become full time benefit scroungers, the job market is far too competitive and those of a nervous disposition such as myself are at a serious disadvantage. You know the best way of getting people working, by making things easier for the worker! It really makes you want to give up. How dare a group of multi-millionaires who've probably never had to work in a single crappy job in their life tell me that I should be prepared to 'get on my bike', makes me sick.

Right rant over.

 

[Abpj17]

Most employers aren't stupid - they can recognise skills/experience vs. someone who can write a pretty CV but with no substance. But for part-time/low salary jobs, it's not worth the investment in a recruitment process. For higher paid, full-time jobs, it absolutely is.

But I think you are wrong that this is a modern issue. It's pretty timeless that
a) the more skills and experience you have, the more you can pick your employer/salary/working condictions
b) the more skills and experience you have, the more likely you are to find a long time stable career

Flexibilty isn't just about changing jobs and going from one bad job to another. Flexibility includes openness to additional training and to relocating to where there are better jobs.

 

[starrymarkb]

A couple of friends of mine do sex work, they pick their hours, they pick their customers (which they do vet prior to any meetups) they earn good money.

As one of them said to me, everyone prostitutes themselves. Doing it for 40 hours a week for big business is more acceptable to society though.

 

[43021HST]

Most employers aren't stupid - they can recognise skills/experience vs. someone who can write a pretty CV but with no substance. But for part-time/low salary jobs, it's not worth the investment in a recruitment process. For higher paid, full-time jobs, it absolutely is.

But I think you are wrong that this is a modern issue. It's pretty timeless that
a) the more skills and experience you have, the more you can pick your employer/salary/working condictions
b) the more skills and experience you have, the more likely you are to find a long time stable career

Flexibilty isn't just about changing jobs and going from one bad job to another. Flexibility includes openness to additional training and to relocating to where there are better jobs.

I know that those conditions have always existed, but it seems to me that these basic conditions have been made stricter by employers.

You mention the more skills and experience you have the more likely you are to have a long stable career. I have to strongly disagree with you there. My father worked in care work for 10 years and managed to get himself to quite a senior position, he was then suddenly and unexpectedly made redundant, he's now working in a factory and hating every minute of it.

The same for my Uncle who was quite a Senior manager at Blackberry, he was also made redundant and now struggles to find a job because he's considered over qualified for most jobs.
There's no such thing as a stable job.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm completely sick of this employer led culture, this is all Thatchers legacy with her 'the managements right to manage' mantra, more like the managements right to exploit.

One quick answer, set up your own company and you too can see life from the other side of the fence....

 

[Butts]

One quick answer, set up your own company and you too can see life from the other side of the fence....

Be gentle with the boy, he's only 20.

To him Mrs Thatcher is a historical figure who's era he never lived through. It sounds as though he has had a subscription (likely web based ) to the archives of Pravda or The Morning Star.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Be gentle with the boy, he's only 20.

To him Mrs Thatcher is a historical figure who's era he never lived through. It sounds as though he has had a subscription (likely web based ) to the archives of Pravda or The Morning Star.

Indeed, I do miss my past posting exchanges with kylemore, who is the official resident spokesman for "Russia Today" on the RailUK forums website...

Life has never been the same since the Reynold's News stopped appearing....

 

[Butts]

Indeed, I do miss my past posting exchanges with kylemore, who is the official resident spokesman for "Russia Today" on the RailUK forums website...

Was he another one barely out of short trousers who thought he could put the world to right with his extensive life experience

 

[Nym]

One quick answer, set up your own company and you too can see life from the other side of the fence....

Been there, done that, I was 19, hated it, working for 'da man' now and making more than I did owning a gaming business...

Was he another one barely out of short trousers who thought he could put the world to right with his extensive life experience

Quite possibly.

I do like when I see people starting out in my industry claiming they have 'experience' or 'life experience' that means they know how to do my job better than I do...
Is always a laugh.

Oh, and before someone passes judgment; I've had 7 jobs in 7 years before having my current one, although considering three of them where for the same agency, that could technically be four, and them very three where all started out as a fixed term contract, so I had my next job lined up for when it finished.

And it's all about targeting your CV, I was way overqualified to sell photos at a theme park attraction (and even more so now), but I got the job, because I targeted the CV correctly and displayed the competencies they wanted (it was a Competency Based Interview).

 

[Abpj17]

I know that those conditions have always existed, but it seems to me that these basic conditions have been made stricter by employers.

You mention the more skills and experience you have the more likely you are to have a long stable career. I have to strongly disagree with you there. My father worked in care work for 10 years and managed to get himself to quite a senior position, he was then suddenly and unexpectedly made redundant, he's now working in a factory and hating every minute of it.

The same for my Uncle who was quite a Senior manager at Blackberry, he was also made redundant and now struggles to find a job because he's considered over qualified for most jobs.
There's no such thing as a stable job.

yes, of course there is such as thing as a stable job (stable doesn't necessarily mean a stable job, but it's still possible for those with skills/experience to often control their job moves rather than just buffeted about at the whim of employers)

I said 'more likely' not 'guaranteed. The anecdote of your father doesn't undermine that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

yes, of course there is such as thing as a stable job.....

But the "mucking-out" is sometimes not what you saw as your chosen role in life...:roll:

 

[bussnapperwm]

I left school 7 years ago to do an apprenticeship with my local council. Year later I got my current job working in "Street Care".

Some days it's enjoyable, some days I want to commit a crime spree because of the incontinence of some of my colleagues and managers, the clientele I have to deal with, the fact I'm overworked and underpaid and all the stresses of Local Government cuts.

 

[edwin_m]

And yet my employer struggles to fill vacancies for graduate engineers who want to work on rail projects....

It's all about qualifications, and the fact that this country doesn't educate enough people with the right ones. Fortunately, thanks to the EU, we can recruit some of the surplus of engineers from Spain.

 

[radamfi]

I think the OP might be best advised to move to the Netherlands where things work on much more on a consensus basis. To a British mentality, the constant to-ing and fro-ing between management and employee would seem unnecessarily inefficient, but it leads to a more happy work life. I wish I did that when I was 20.

 

[bangor-toad]

Some days it's enjoyable, some days I want to commit a crime spree because of the incontinence of some of my colleagues and managers, ....

Class 172 Fan,
Thank you *so* much for this post highlighting the perils of autocorrect. I know exactly what you meant to say but what's posted has caused me to laugh out loud on an otherwise rather rough morning! The comedy image of applying this to my office is great

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[Tetchytyke]

Be gentle with the boy, he's only 20.

Maybe, but then again it is usually the young who are exploited the most because of their naivety.

The government gets in the act early doors- you have little entitlement to benefits when you're young and you lose your job, and the minimum wage is significantly lower if you're young. Not to mention the joke that is workfare- "learn about the world of work by doing a proper job for no wages!"- and the pathetic pay you'll get even on a proper apprenticeship.

And employers take their cues from the government. They stick everyone on zero hours contracts, they treat call centre staff in a way that if they treated cows the same would see the RSPCA arresting them for cruelty. The absolute worst job I ever had was when I was 21, in a call centre where you had to stick your hand up and ask permission to go for a wee. It was worse than being in primary school. You try and do your best, get up and do some grafting, and you get treated like that.

Employers who cannot pay the minimum wage and who cannot give fixed hours contracts do not deserve to be in business.

The best thing is that the employers are screwing over staff in this country and, rather than challenge them to behave properly, the filth in the Conservative Party and the scum in the Labour Party are tripping over each other in who can be the nastiest about Bulgarians. It's not your boss' fault he treats you like something he stepped in because he wants that second Bentley, it's that bloke from Sofia who landed last week.

 

[Aldaniti]

Klambert - I have a lot of sympathy with you but it isn't all Margaret Thatcher's fault. You can blame all of the PM's that followed, particularly (especially!) Tony Blair, and perhaps a few that preceded her.

We live in a capitalist world where labour supply and demand now rules in favour of what the corporate world demands. On what lunatic planet would you pay several million people to be idle and then import labour - mainly cheap labour - that is prepared to accept far lower living standards than we have strived to achieve for many years - just to satisfy the demands of large corporations? Corporations who now demand ready access to minimum wage staff who, in many cases, are treated quite appallingly. We are going backwards as a country and it is no wonder that people are getting stressed and dissatisfied with their lives. I'm not too bad, I'm over half way through life and haven't done too badly, but I truly feel sorry for many of the youngsters starting out in life today.

But you get what you vote for and whilst the electorate continue to vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, I'm afraid the problem will persist, and quite possibly get worse.

 

[Greenback]

Aldaniti, I love your post!

 

[Oswyntail]

Klambert - I have a lot of sympathy with you but it isn't all Margaret Thatcher's fault. You can blame all of the PM's that followed, particularly (especially!) Tony Blair, and perhaps a few that preceded her....
But you get what you vote for and whilst the electorate continue to vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, I'm afraid the problem will persist, and quite possibly get worse.

Perhaps the biggest mistake (in this area!) that Blair made was to push for most young people to go to University, with those that don't at least staying on at school. University is not, and never has been, an appropriate route for everyone, nor has A-level. However, what was created was a generation, laden with debt, who in many ways were over-qualified for the jobs that need doing, but who expected "graduate" remuneration. As a typical example, look at nursing (in a simplistic way, I know): first it moved to all-graduate entry; then it required "graduate" salaries; then it became unaffordable in required numbers; then employers invented an "entry grade" nurse who could be recruited straight from school and was much cheaper. Full circle? Yes, but the entry-level staff are recruited for a pittance because of the costs of the graduate entry staff, and resent it.
And still we get it wrong! What does the country actually need? Certainly not thousands more engineers, programmers, forensic scientists, lawyers (some, of course, but not everyone). It actually needs young people who are literate and numerate enough to understand and follow processes, and, eventually, for some of them to be able to run a ****-up in a brewery. Not rocket science, is it?

 

[Aldaniti]

Aldaniti, I love your post!

Thank you kind sir. To be honest, I had the tin hat donned and ready!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the biggest mistake (in this area!) that Blair made was to push for most young people to go to University, with those that don't at least staying on at school. University is not, and never has been, an appropriate route for everyone, nor has A-level.

I agree fully. And that was the cause of tuition fees - it was never viable to subsidise such a large number of people going through university.

Apprenticeships are great - but there need to be more of them and in more industries.

Neil

 

[Aldaniti]

Perhaps the biggest mistake (in this area!) that Blair made was to push for most young people to go to University, with those that don't at least staying on at school. University is not, and never has been, an appropriate route for everyone, nor has A-level. However, what was created was a generation, laden with debt, who in many ways were over-qualified for the jobs that need doing, but who expected "graduate" remuneration. As a typical example, look at nursing (in a simplistic way, I know): first it moved to all-graduate entry; then it required "graduate" salaries; then it became unaffordable in required numbers; then employers invented an "entry grade" nurse who could be recruited straight from school and was much cheaper. Full circle? Yes, but the entry-level staff are recruited for a pittance because of the costs of the graduate entry staff, and resent it.
And still we get it wrong! What does the country actually need? Certainly not thousands more engineers, programmers, forensic scientists, lawyers (some, of course, but not everyone). It actually needs young people who are literate and numerate enough to understand and follow processes, and, eventually, for some of them to be able to run a ****-up in a brewery. Not rocket science, is it?

No, it isn't, and I couldn't agree more. I come across more people with a degree, but who can't add up or put a few sentences together, than you can shake a stick at. Madness.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree fully. And that was the cause of tuition fees - it was never viable to subsidise such a large number of people going through university.

Except of course tuition fees have nothing to do with that. Infact the new system will actually cost the taxpayer more.

Tuition fees were brought in on a purely ideological basis. The Tories wanted students to pay closer to the "market rate" for their degree. And if you look around enough you'll find that at least part of the Tory party actually support removing the limits and letting universities charge whatever they want. Leading to a situation where either the taxpayer will pay even more to cover the higher fees, or only those who can afford the fees upfront will be able to go.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps the biggest mistake (in this area!) that Blair made was to push for most young people to go to University, with those that don't at least staying on at school. University is not, and never has been, an appropriate route for everyone, nor has A-level.

It depends how you define "mistake". The intention of that was, to an extent, to keep unemployment levels down among young people, and to try and give them some training. It's certainly a better idea than the Tories' workfare wheeze of forcing someone to do a job but not bothering to pay them.

As for debt levels, that was David Willetts who created that mess- ironic in the context of you talking about people who "can't add up". Tuition fees were ramped up to create a "market" in higher education- most of the additional cost incurred by the government is due to sub-standard private colleges- and, like every other Tory ideological policy, it's been a resounding failure. Not that the Tories would ever stop and look in the mirror and maybe blame themselves. It's everyone else's fault, as always, and the only solution is more neo-liberal ideology.

The idea of these "lazy graduates" "refusing" to work is a complete myth. It always has been and always will be. I've worked in call centres and in the mail room after leaving uni ten years ago and most of my friends have too.

I always get the feeling that what the Tories really don't like about the university system is the idea that the hoi polloi would ever want to try and better themselves. Know your place: that's the Tory way.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
I always get the feeling that what the Tories really don't like about the university system is the idea that the hoi polloi would ever want to try and better themselves. Know your place: that's the Tory way.

Apart from the uneducated solecism there, you have such little understanding of Conservative values that your opinion becomes worthless

 

[Greenback]

The intention was laudable, if as I understand it was, it was more to do with upskilling the population of the future than keeping youth unemployment down at the time. I accept my understanding of it is debatable, but that was the impression I had during the expansion of higher education under the Conservatives and during Blair's premiership.

Whether it has actually worked is even more debatable.

As an aside, I am so tired of government attempts to artificially create markets, whether it's in higher education, transport or the NHS. When are they going to realise it's not going to work?

 

[radamfi]

Apart from the uneducated solecism there, you have such little understanding of Conservative values that your opinion becomes worthless

Could you define 'conservative values'?

 

[ainsworth74]

Apart from the uneducated solecism there, you have such little understanding of Conservative values that your opinion becomes worthless

But does the Conservative party still represent classical conservative values?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except of course tuition fees have nothing to do with that. Infact the new system will actually cost the taxpayer more.

More than what, precisely? More than a 1990s level of students with free fees,or more than a 2010 level of students with free fees?

Neil

 

[Yew]

As an aside, I am so tired of government attempts to artificially create markets, whether it's in higher education, transport or the NHS. When are they going to realise it's not going to work?

But it is working, very well in fact. At least at shoveling taxpayers money into the pockets of their Eaton and Harrow cohorts, and rich multinational companies.