Employer led culture

[Arglwydd Golau]

But the real, desperate need, is for recruits who could manage a ****-up in a brewery. No, not MBAs, or management consultants - managers!

Oh, how I agree! The MBA is the bane of management and does absolutely nothing to prove that the recipient can manage (and lead!)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It does make me wonder if everyone has a degree, what value do they have?

Clearly, there is some intrinsic value in people being educated to a certain level. (After all, nearly everyone has GCSE's or something equivalent, but you probably wouldn't question their value just because they are common: The benefits of being able to read, write, do basic maths, understand some basic science, have some knowledge of our history and be at least a little proficient in a foreign language are hopefully self-evident).

The interesting question is then, to what level is worthwhile to pay to make sure people get educated. I'm not certain of the answer to that, but it does seem to me that the frequently heard complaints by companies that they can't find sufficiently skilled UK-based recruits suggests that we are not adequately educating people for business. The extent to which people accept and propagate misinformation about all manner of things: Trivial gossip, misleading stuff about immigrants etc., suggests that we are not adequately educating people to reason properly, or to participate in the kind of mature democracy that the UK aspires to be. And on a more personal level, the amount of violence and dysfunctional relationships, etc. in the UK, suggest to me that we are not adequately educating people in how to deal with human relationships, or in basic values of kindness and consideration for others.

I'm not certain what the solution to all that is. Perhaps it indicates some need to reform our education system or the curriculum, or what subjects are offered? But none of that seems to me to indicate any need for less education, fewer degrees, or less Government support for higher education.

 

[ExRes]

Ha you missed the old days....

No Tuition Fees , Maintenance Grants , Housing and Unemployment Benefit out of Term Times - ie during the summer.

My brother once got a DSS Grant for a new bed and blew the lot on booze - no wonder he had to do "a year again" ending up at Plymouth Poly for 4 years.

Here's hoping that much of your post is in jest

'No tuition fees, maintenance grants, housing and unemployment benefit out of term times' - Who paid for these I wonder, could it have been we taxpayers and through government borrowing, the very same tax which so many complain is excessive and the very same borrowing which government is constantly slagged off for ?

As for your second paragraph, what can I say, your brother effectively stole the grant and then we all ended up footing the bill for another year of so called education, is he proud of that ? are you proud of that ? should we all happily pay our taxes so that those 'good old days' can return ?

 

[43021HST]

But that chart also shows that the education budget is twice the defence budget, and over five times the transport budget.

Yes nothing wrong with that, 'other spending' which is rather disconcertingly vague is more than the defense budget.

You say you've done engineering and are now doing IT. Does that mean you have an engineering degree (mechanical, electrical?) and are now pursuing a second degree, or is it all part of the same course?

The Engineering qualification was simply a Level 2 BTEC course, which is the equivalent of a GCSE qualification, unfortunately my school didn't offer Engineering as a GCSE subject (but it did offer business, if you ask me I think there's too many studying business, to become a manager I think you need experience rather than a business degree.) I thought it would make a good foundation to get a job in the trades should things go t*ts up in IT, it's also handy for getting a job as an IT engineer.

I chose to study IT and Engineering due to the surplus of jobs asking for qualified IT engineers on some very nice wages (thats if I can pass the interview )

I think Oswyntail mentioned the fact we have an insufficient supply of experts and people who can think laterally, I would blame this on employer meddling in the syllabus. The lecturer even states that the 'employabilty lessons' have been requested for by the employers.

I mentioned in my OP that a lot of time is wasted on my course, learning how to knock up a CV and interview techniques, the problem is we're teaching people how to pass an interview, rather than how to be experts in their jobs. Something I blame on the fact now that competition between workers is so high that interview standards are very stringent.

I mean the average IT dweeb (like me) would struggle to pass an interview, 'due to a lack of communication skills' but would know how to perform the job competently. Meanwhile the busty blonde or the chisel jawed bloke with a business degree would be able to ace the interview, due to having more advanced communication skills but most likely be incompetent at the job.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes nothing wrong with that, 'other spending' which is rather disconcertingly vague is more than the defense budget.

I find it mildly concerning we spend more on interest than we do on defence!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I mean the average IT dweeb (like me) would struggle to pass an interview, 'due to a lack of communication skills' but would know how to perform the job competently. Meanwhile the busty blonde or the chisel jawed bloke with a business degree would be able to ace the interview, due to having more advanced communication skills but most likely be incompetent at the job.

Then it sounds like teaching you employability, interview and communication skills might be a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[LowLevel]

I'm a university drop out, got myself on the ladder in the middle of the recession and have had employers chuck themselves at me for most jobs I applied for once I got through to interview - despite being a confirmed failure in higher education I earn over 30 grand a year and don't seem to have problems gaining promotion when I want it and doubled my wages over 3 years.

If you have a suit, act confidently and make sure you aren't a soap dodger who doesn't ever brush their teeth then you should get something eventually. Look people in the eye, be proactive and passionate and sell yourself.

I can only recommend the railway by the way - get in the door and you can go anywhere.

 

[43021HST]

Then it sounds like teaching you employability, interview and communication skills might be a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Missed my overall point possibly?

 

[underbank]

Clearly, there is some intrinsic value in people being educated to a certain level. (After all, nearly everyone has GCSE's or something equivalent, but you probably wouldn't question their value just because they are common: The benefits of being able to read, write, do basic maths, understand some basic science, have some knowledge of our history and be at least a little proficient in a foreign language are hopefully self-evident).

But isn't the statistic something like 40% of school leavers don't reach the basic standards of functional numeracy and literacy? Employers aren't just bemoaning the lack of particular workplace skills, they're complaining about people who aren't literate/numerate. So it seems that the schools are failing 40% of the youngsters if they're not capable of even the most basic jobs when they leave school. When I've been recruiting trainees, I give them a very simple test with questions that I've taken from current day 11+ papers which really does highlight those with poor functional basic skills. Even those with good GCSEs and sometimes even A levels, make basic mistakes such as not being able to spell February, not knowing how many days there are in each month, not knowing how to work out simple percentages. It's very worrying that the schools can't even get the basics right, so surely that needs addressing first before they look at improving sciences, languages, etc.

 

[devon_metro]

I mean the average IT dweeb (like me) would struggle to pass an interview, 'due to a lack of communication skills' but would know how to perform the job competently. Meanwhile the busty blonde or the chisel jawed bloke with a business degree would be able to ace the interview, due to having more advanced communication skills but most likely be incompetent at the job.

There is far more to a job than simply being good at the main task. Most roles involve some kind of communication, so employing somebody with poor communication skills is likely to be at the detriment of the company.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There is far more to a job than simply being good at the main task. Most roles involve some kind of communication, so employing somebody with poor communication skills is likely to be at the detriment of the company.

Indeed. Communication skills are important in any area of work, as to some extent are presentation skills. Obviously without interview skills you're not going to get the job.

It's very easy to complain that every blonde with large tits or any man with designer stubble get the job on the basis of communication skills without having any work skills, but the actual likelihood is that they are both good at communication & interviews, and good at the job itself. Anyone who's employed who actually can't do the job gets found out pretty quickly.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... It's very worrying that the schools can't even get the basics right, so surely that needs addressing first before they look at improving sciences, languages, etc.

Some Oxford colleges have had to offer classes in how to write an essay, as what was being offered was random, unstructured notes. And Mrs O, in the Civil Service, is forever having to correct the spelling, punctuation, and grammar of graduate entrants - because precise communication is the job, and they just cannot do it.

 

[Abpj17]

I'm not sure employers meant 'employability' to mean how to write a CV and pass an interview (that sounds more like government meddling).

What they mean is someone who knows how to work hard, turn up on time, work as part of a team, not need constant babysitting, continue to learn in a job, cares about doing their job well etc.

 

[Nym]

Hang on, part of the Civil Service actually checks what they do?

Also, some graduates correct the spelling and grammar of those who have been working in the industry for some 44 years

Why do I sometimes feel like the only recent graduate who got a job he likes out of it where he actually uses his course?

 

[fowler9]

Hang on, part of the Civil Service actually checks what they do?

Also, some graduates correct the spelling and grammar of those who have been working in the industry for some 44 years

Why do I sometimes feel like the only recent graduate who got a job he likes out of it where he actually uses his course?

Because there are only one or two of you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And Mrs O, in the Civil Service, is forever having to correct the spelling, punctuation, and grammar of graduate entrants - because precise communication is the job, and they just cannot do it.

You should see some of the stuff that comes out of our Big Cheese's office. Poor spelling and grammar is not the preserve of the young.

I mean the average IT dweeb (like me) would struggle to pass an interview, 'due to a lack of communication skills' but would know how to perform the job competently. Meanwhile the busty blonde or the chisel jawed bloke with a business degree would be able to ace the interview, due to having more advanced communication skills but most likely be incompetent at the job.

Communication is an essential part of any job. If you can't communicate then you can't do the job. Period.

I recruit to a different sector, but I look for communication skills above all else. The regulations and laws that govern my job can be taught quite easily to someone who has good listening and comprehension skills, it's the communication skills that are harder to teach.

As an aside, the fact you prattle on about "busty blondes" getting the job instead of you is interesting. It shows a lack of personal insight on your part, which will do more damage to your job chances than anything else. Instead of learning from failed interviews and working out what to do better next time, you're essentially saying the recruiters are wrong. That's not going to do you a great deal of good.

 

[NSEFAN]

As an aside, the fact you prattle on about "busty blondes" getting the job instead of you is interesting. It shows a lack of personal insight on your part, which will do more damage to your job chances than anything else. Instead of learning from failed interviews and working out what to do better next time, you're essentially saying the recruiters are wrong. That's not going to do you a great deal of good.

A true sysadmin never admits they're wrong.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A true sysadmin never admits they're wrong.

No, a true sysadmin ruins your life

I do love BOFH over on The Register.

 

[43021HST]

A true sysadmin never admits they're wrong.

Nope, that would unprofessional

What I'm saying is the communication skills you have to show in a lot of interviews are a bit over the top for what the job will require; I think my communication skills are adequate, I'll leave you lot to judge my written communication on here . But to be honest I haven't got a gripe with performing interviews per se, I can blag my way through one. But I do have a problem when something like a supermarket or cleaning job asks to do a formal interview, I mean what is the purpose? I accept an interview of sorts has to be undertaken so they know who you are, that you're not a complete moron and can perform the job with some competency but I think its ridiculous if you have to turn up in a full suit and answer questions about how passionate you are about customer service. I'm sure it's just to make the HR department feel important.

To be honest though I've only ever failed one job interview and I've had around 5 jobs. But for this job interview you had to design and present a presentation on quite a taxing topic. Rather than the usual question/answer session. To be honest I did the first half ok but the second half the nerves got to me.

 

[dcsprior]

I mean the average IT dweeb (like me) would struggle to pass an interview, 'due to a lack of communication skills' but would know how to perform the job competently. Meanwhile the busty blonde or the chisel jawed bloke with a business degree would be able to ace the interview, due to having more advanced communication skills but most likely be incompetent at the job.

Communication is an essential part of any job. If you can't communicate then you can't do the job. Period.

I agree. I work in IT, and I do not want to waste time because someone has been inaccurate when detailing a requirement or vague when reporting an issue.

However there can be a difference between being able to communicate well, and what I'd call being "shiny" - prioritising style over substance, and ensuring that the buzzword ratio in the interview is kept high. Sometimes when you only have a short time with someone, the shiny person can come over very well.

But I do have a problem when something like a supermarket or cleaning job asks to do a formal interview, I mean what is the purpose? I accept an interview of sorts has to be undertaken so they know who you are, that you're not a complete moron and can perform the job with some competency but I think its ridiculous if you have to turn up in a full suit and answer questions about how passionate you are about customer service.

I think you have to remember that to some of the applicants people, this job isn't just a stop-gap. Therefore describing the job requirements as 'not [be] a complete moron' is doing them a disservice.

Also, a good employer may aim for at least a certain percent of people hired in entry-level jobs moving on to other roles within the company. The reason for a relatively thorough interview may be to ensure these people don't get missed.

I agree with a lot of points you've made in this thread. but would like to give you my perspective. I've just PM'd you my own employment history - as you can see, I've avoided coming up against "shiny" people as far as possible, by mainly interviewing within my current employer where people will know me. The one time I've moved employers, it was to a more junior role. I've more than once taken a temporary job or secondment in the hope I'd prove myself and therefore get something more permanent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However there can be a difference between being able to communicate well, and what I'd call being "shiny" - prioritising style over substance, and ensuring that the buzzword ratio in the interview is kept high. Sometimes when you only have a short time with someone, the shiny person can come over very well.

I'd agree, to an extent. The person who comes across as confident will have an advantage over the person who comes across as shy. The main reason isn't because they're "shiny" but because they actually answer the questions you ask of them. If you mumble into your jumper because you're shy and nervous then you'll put yourself at a big disadvantage.

I can only speak for myself, but I take a dislike to people who play buzzword bingo and I take an instant dislike to that particular sort of man who shakes your hand a bit too firmly for a bit too long. But if you're so shy you can't communicate your skills to me then I'm not going to guess what those skills might be.

 

[muz379]

I actually had a first hand experience of this employer led culture today .
I was in Mcdonalds just looking at the menu waiting to be served when I saw the franchise manager berating one of the staff and asking her in the least polite way to get onto her till and serve me . I wasn't actually bothered I was looking at the menu deciding what I wanted but as I approached her till he was still stood there telling her it wasn't good enough and blah blah blah like self important managers do .

As she went away to get my coffee he apologized to me for "poor service" and went to walk away . Just as he did I asked him who he actually was because he didnt have a uniform or name badge on . When he identified himself as the franchise owner I decided to tell him what I thought . I just said "actually I was more offended by the way you spoke to your staff than having to wait 30 seconds to order". I also pointed out to him that even if there where problems with staff performance , berating the staff in front of customers and their colleagues was not the way to go about it . He looked embarrassed and just sort of shuffled away . Unfortunately I know that this guy owns a few franchised restaurants around here so probably treats a lot of staff like that . Its a shame because I know only too well having worked for managers like that what it can do to you.

 

[Nym]

Considering McDonald's apparent policies on being an ethical employer, I don't think that projects the image that head office wants...

 

[Drsatan]

One issue I've heard of is employers ignoring the provisions of the EU Working Time Directive, in particular the 11-hour gap between shifts, and the minimum of 20 minutes rest every six hours of work.

When I worked in retail, I would sometimes work eight-hour shifts without a break. I have heard of people my age being asked to work seven days a week, or do the closing shift and come in for the opening shift.

I understand that if you are dismissed owing to you standing up for your rights under the Working Time Directive, the employer can be taken to an employment tribunal without, even if you have worked there for less than two years, assuming one started work after April 2012. (As it stands, employment tribunals are restricted to those who have worked for the same firm for two years, unless unfair dismissal is being claimed under a number of circumstances).

Now the Government has increased the fees quite substantially for employment tribunals, employers will be able to get away with ignoring the Working Time Directive. What kind of justice is that?

Oh, I forgot, the Tories would like employment law to be akin to the States where someone can be sacked for little reason.....

 

[Butts]

One issue I've heard of is employers ignoring the provisions of the EU Working Time Directive, in particular the 11-hour gap between shifts, and the minimum of 20 minutes rest every six hours of work.When I worked in retail, I would sometimes work eight-hour shifts without a break. I have heard of people my age being asked to work seven days a week, or do the closing shift and come in for the opening shift.

I understand that if you are dismissed owing to you standing up for your rights under the Working Time Directive, the employer can be taken to an employment tribunal without, even if you have worked there for less than two years, assuming one started work after April 2012. (As it stands, employment tribunals are restricted to those who have worked for the same firm for two years, unless unfair dismissal is being claimed under a number of circumstances).

Now the Government has increased the fees quite substantially for employment tribunals, employers will be able to get away with ignoring the Working Time Directive. What kind of justice is that?

Oh, I forgot, the Tories would like employment law to be akin to the States where someone can be sacked for little reason.....

Perhaps you are unaware but some occupations including Security Officers are excluded from a lot of the provisions of The Working Time Directive including breaks and number of days worked. In practice on a lot of assignments unofficial breaks are able to be taken. Even if you don't elect to work over 48 hours the average is based over a 17 week period so you can easily work 7 or more 12 hour shifts in a row.

Oh by the way, this was happening while the last Labour Government was in power as well

 

[Drsatan]

Perhaps you are unaware but some occupations including Security Officers are excluded from a lot of the provisions of The Working Time Directive including breaks and number of days worked. In practice on a lot of assignments unofficial breaks are able to be taken. Even if you don't elect to work over 48 hours the average is based over a 17 week period so you can easily work 7 or more 12 hour shifts in a row.

Oh by the way, this was happening while the last Labour Government was in power as well

Yes, I was aware that some occupations were exempt from some of the Working Time Directive's provisions - namely, au pairs and carers are exempt from the rest breaks requirement, while those who work on board ships are exempt from the 11 hour break.

My point was that, in some cases, the rights of employees in occupations not exempt from the provisions you have mentioned are being abused. For example, if you worked in a pub on the closing shift, and were then scheduled to come in for the opening shift (say, you finish at 1am and then asked to come in at 8am for the breakfast shift), I doubt you'd be a happy bunny. Not to mention that if you drove to work on around four and a half hours sleep there would be a much greater risk of causing an accident.

If you complained about this to your manager and were told to go f**k yourself - you'd have little redress.

These are simply based on some of my own observations.

 

[43021HST]

I actually had a first hand experience of this employer led culture today .
I was in Mcdonalds just looking at the menu waiting to be served when I saw the franchise manager berating one of the staff and asking her in the least polite way to get onto her till and serve me . I wasn't actually bothered I was looking at the menu deciding what I wanted but as I approached her till he was still stood there telling her it wasn't good enough and blah blah blah like self important managers do .

As she went away to get my coffee he apologized to me for "poor service" and went to walk away . Just as he did I asked him who he actually was because he didnt have a uniform or name badge on . When he identified himself as the franchise owner I decided to tell him what I thought . I just said "actually I was more offended by the way you spoke to your staff than having to wait 30 seconds to order". I also pointed out to him that even if there where problems with staff performance , berating the staff in front of customers and their colleagues was not the way to go about it . He looked embarrassed and just sort of shuffled away . Unfortunately I know that this guy owns a few franchised restaurants around here so probably treats a lot of staff like that . Its a shame because I know only too well having worked for managers like that what it can do to you.

Good on you, the abuse fast food employees receive from managers is silly, the reason why I didn't last too long at Dominos is because I would shout back at the manager, if he did that in front of me at the customers.

Yes, I was aware that some occupations were exempt from some of the Working Time Directive's provisions - namely, au pairs and carers are exempt from the rest breaks requirement, while those who work on board ships are exempt from the 11 hour break.

My point was that, in some cases, the rights of employees in occupations not exempt from the provisions you have mentioned are being abused. For example, if you worked in a pub on the closing shift, and were then scheduled to come in for the opening shift (say, you finish at 1am and then asked to come in at 8am for the breakfast shift), I doubt you'd be a happy bunny. Not to mention that if you drove to work on around four and a half hours sleep there would be a much greater risk of causing an accident.

If you complained about this to your manager and were told to go f**k yourself - you'd have little redress.

These are simply based on some of my own observations.

Wetherspoons is supposed to be bad for this and refusing breaks despite the employee being entitled to one. I have a friend who works there and the hours she works without breaks is criminal. Changing the subject slightly the same friend, she broke her finger whilst work at Wetherspoons, the manager refused to put it in the accident book and made her work for the next couple of hours by threatening her with the sack, thankfully there was CCTV proof of her breaking her finger and the lack of record in the accident book, so she tried to sue the manager, unsurprisingly the CCTV footage goes missing and it was all covered up.

If I was legally entitled to a break but and the manager insisted I wasn't to have one I'd have a break anyway, balls to the manager!

 

[Butts]

Good on you, the abuse fast food employees receive from managers is silly, the reason why I didn't last too long at Dominos is because I would shout back at the manager, if he did that in front of me at the customers.



Wetherspoons is supposed to be bad for this and refusing breaks despite the employee being entitled to one. I have a friend who works there and the hours she works without breaks is criminal. Changing the subject slightly the same friend, she broke her finger whilst work at Wetherspoons, the manager refused to put it in the accident book and made her work for the next couple of hours by threatening her with the sack, thankfully there was CCTV proof of her breaking her finger and the lack of record in the accident book, so she tried to sue the manager, unsurprisingly the CCTV footage goes missing and it was all covered up.

If I was legally entitled to a break but and the manager insisted I wasn't to have one I'd have a break anyway, balls to the manager!

Your correct in that assumption - a permanent break

 

[muz379]

Good on you, the abuse fast food employees receive from managers is silly, the reason why I didn't last too long at Dominos is because I would shout back at the manager, if he did that in front of me at the customers.

It really annoys me when managers do this to their staff in front of me as a customer . Ive only ever had a manager do this to me once when I was working in a shop , I pointed it out to him at the time and made it clear Id walk out if treated like that . A month later I did walk out permanently because I found a better job .

 

[43021HST]

Your correct in that assumption - a permanent break

Thankfully I've never had a manager who would refuse me a break, to be fair most of them were ok. But I think some of them wouldn't dare , I'm not a nice chap if I haven't had my coffee.