Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:54 am  

Cookridge_Rhino wrote:

I recently graduated from university, and to be completely honest, with a masters degree in maths/physics from a top university I felt that I was above menial work. I don't think it makes me a snob.

Yes, it does. You think you're too good to earn a living in a job you deem to be below you. But that doesn't mean I disagree with your reasoning.

The graduate job applications are an absolute nightmare, It was pretty much a full time job, and I genuinely don't think I would've been able to give myself the best chance of getting a job if I were working.

Sorry, I'm hearing excuses. Plenty of people (including graduates) manage to job hunt while in employment.

I don't think older people have any idea how time consuming graduate job hunting is. To give you a rough idea, for each job I applied to I probably spent a full day initially researching the company, then another full day filling out the application form, and answering all the motivation/competency questions (the average was probably 5 questions, 300 word limit for each) Then there's the online tests (one of the big 4 made me do 5 separate tests). When I passed these stages I spent maybe 3 or 4 full days researching the company/preparing for the interview. Then another day or two revising everything before my assessment day/second interview. I did about 20 graduate applications, and got to the interview stage of most.

You think applying for jobs these days takes longer? Try job-hunting when jobs could only be found in certain local or specialist papers on certain days of the week or by visiting job agencies, when you often had to pay to get a CV put together and printed, then had to post it off before attending several stages of the interview process, and when, weeks later, you were still waiting by the phone for 'that' call, or by the letterbox for 'that' letter. Time-consuming? You don't know the half.

Today, you can search for jobs 24/7 and your application and cover letter half the work can be done in seconds online, via email or by phone wherever you are, and an interview arranged within minutes. Assessments can be done online and your research can be done online. On that note - how on earth you can take 3/4 days to research a company and prepare for an interview is beyond me.

Also, I think there are a lot of snobby recruiters out there, and I think that a lot of the prestigious companies would be put off from hiring someone who graduated from uni then went to work at Starbucks or Morrisons. Yes being unemployed looks worse, but if you do some charity work/travelling like I did, and sell it as a gap year it looks a lot better.

Not sure I agree with that. The more 'prestigious' recruiters I recruited for didn't really care. They wanted the relevant qualifications, and of course if possible, relevant experience and the 'right' person.

Before I get any abuse, In my time unemployed I'm not claiming JSA or any benefits - I'm doing a bit of maths tutoring, and I'm lucky that my parents can help me out a bit.

Good on you. And yes you are lucky. I see no reason why the state should support you for an indeterminate length of time because you see a whole raft of jobs as below you.

If I did a subject with limited opportunity for tutoring and my parents couldn't help me out, then I would've claimed JSA whilst I was job hunting, and the forced employment would've lowered my chances of getting a top graduate job compared with those not forced to claim JSA.

Does the old saying 'it's easier to find a job when you have one' not apply? Perhaps genuinely not for a graduate straight out of uni. Working for a low wage in a menial job may be unappealing to someone as smart as you, but it's miles better than working for your JSA.

Yes there are loads of people with a 2.2 in media studies from a poor uni who probably need to get used to menial work, but not at the expense of punishing talented, poor graduates by forcing them to work at poundland when they should be doing job applications.

Most of them probably expected the same from their degree as you do - a chance to obtain the first step on the rung of a good career. Problem is, that's getting tougher and tougher.

I sympathise with you and other graduates, I really do. The job market is a horrible place for experienced workers, never mind young people with only a slip of paper and no experience. But for me that's all the more reason to take what you can get while you're looking. Unless your parents are willing to bail you out indefinitely of course.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:56 am  

Cronus wrote:

Yes, it does. You think you're too good to earn a living in a job you deem to be below you. But that doesn't mean I disagree with your reasoning.

Sorry, I'm hearing excuses. Plenty of people (including graduates) manage to job hunt while in employment.

I know that I can do better than a minimum wage job. Stating that makes me sound a bit like a knob but its true. I'm definitely not a snob, I wouldn't be volunteering at a local charity shop if I was. I know that it's possible to job hunt whilst in employment, I just think that it reduces your likelihood of finding a graduate job, so I decided I wasn't going to risk it.

Cronus wrote:

You think applying for jobs these days takes longer? Try job-hunting when jobs could only be found in certain local or specialist papers on certain days of the week or by visiting job agencies, when you often had to pay to get a CV put together and printed, then had to post it off before attending several stages of the interview process, and when, weeks later, you were still waiting by the phone for 'that' call, or by the letterbox for 'that' letter. Time-consuming? You don't know the half.

All people of my parents generation that I've spoken with simply sent off a cover letter and a copy of their CV, then if they were successful went down for an interview. There wasn't a ridiculous number of tests to pass, competency and motivation questions to answer, second interviews, assessment days etc. Its easier to look for a job nowadays when it can all be done on the internet, but they seems to be a lot more stages to the application process, I presume because the applicant/job ratio tends to be much higher. I may be wrong - my parents and their friends don't have 'good' jobs, so this might be why they don't understand how complicated and time consuming the application process is.

Cronus wrote:

...your research can be done online. On that note - how on earth you can take 3/4 days to research a company and prepare for an interview is beyond me.

Very, very extensive research on the company that I'm applying to, their main competitors and the industry. When there are over a hundred people applying per vacancy, all of them with a good academic record (they literally won't even let you apply if you don't), and many with relevant work experience (which I don't have), I thought it was best to try and stand out by being ridiculously knowledgeable about the company.

Cronus wrote:

Not sure I agree with that. The more 'prestigious' recruiters I recruited for didn't really care. They wanted the relevant qualifications, and of course if possible, relevant experience and the 'right' person.

That surprises me a little, but tbf that opinion wasn't really based on any evidence, just a gut feeling, so it might be completely wrong (in most cases).

Cronus wrote:

Does the old saying 'it's easier to find a job when you have one' not apply? Perhaps genuinely not for a graduate straight out of uni.

I think probably not for someone straight out of uni (as long as oyu have previsou work experience of some sort), after a year the travelling/volunteering excuse runs out and gaps in your CV really start to look bad.

Most of them probably expected the same from their degree as you do - a chance to obtain the first step on the rung of a good career. Problem is, that's getting tougher and tougher.

Yeah I know, I feel sorry for people who haven't got a 'good' degree from a 'good' uni, many of them have been sold a very expensive lie IMO.

Cronus wrote:

I sympathise with you and other graduates, I really do. The job market is a horrible place for experienced workers, never mind young people with only a slip of paper and no experience. But for me that's all the more reason to take what you can get while you're looking. Unless your parents are willing to bail you out indefinitely of course.

Personally having worked in a supermarket for 6 years, I don't think any menial work would really give me any experience, or make me more employable. I know what you mean though, I have friends who are 22/23 and have never had a job, I wouldn't hire them.

I think my parents are willing to support me for 1 round of applications, if by the end of this application cycle I didn't have a job I think I'd have to lower my target significantly and take anything just to pay board (Luckily I've got an offer from one of the big 4 so I won't get to find out).

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:42 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't disagree regarding the work programme, where I do disagree is your notion that you need a degree to work in a museum - that is simply not true.

Obviously a degree would not be a requirement for absolutely every job at a museum but do you seriously contend that the only people employed at a museum are those working in the shop or greeting visitors?

Where do you suggest those who are responsible for research, collation, arhchiving etc are sourced? Perhaps they could all be work experience, dole-wallahs but I'd suggest that the museum experience would be a lot poorer for it. Or maybe museums should just be great big sheds with a handfull of minimum-waged greeters and shop assistants, then all the technical and intelligent stuff could be outsourced to the private sector.

Do we still have museums in your "real world"?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:00 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Obviously a degree would not be a requirement for absolutely every job at a museum but do you seriously contend that the only people employed at a museum are those working in the shop or greeting visitors?

Where do you suggest those who are responsible for research, collation, arhchiving etc are sourced? Perhaps they could all be work experience, dole-wallahs but I'd suggest that the museum experience would be a lot poorer for it. Or maybe museums should just be great big sheds with a handfull of minimum-waged greeters and shop assistants, then all the technical and intelligent stuff could be outsourced to the private sector.

Do we still have museums in your "real world"?

You are once again struggling with simple comprehension - where in this thread did I suggest that the only people who work in a museum work in the shop or greet visitors? I simply countered Damo's suggestion that you needed to have a university education to work in one.

Given the majority of museums outside of London are pretty small affairs I would suggest - although I have no data - that the greater majority of people who work in these museums don't have a university education. Does that make the experience any the worse?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:02 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

My cousin is a zoologist at the Natural History Museum in London. He has a doctorate in zoology which is the requirement to being a zoologist at the museum. It also qualifies him to be an expert on such programmes such as Inside Natures Giants. Without his Cambridge degree and Doctorate he couldn't work at the museum in his chosen field.

Again I never said that - what I said was having a degree is not a minimum requirement to work in a museum.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:03 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Nice fishing rod, wrong bait though.

A fact all the same

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:21 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

A fact all the same

No its not, and there is a very simple reason why no government minister ever dare utter the word "wage" when speaking of any sort of workfare program - it can't be seen as a wage because HM Government would be breaking the law by paying £2.30 an hour to an adult for workfare.

Its an allowance based on your past contributions or current lack of income and your age, and its work experience designed to be part of an overall training and advice package offered to all job seekers which may or may not include some element of practical work experience, simple as that, nothing to do with a wage at all, be very careful about refering to it in that way in The House.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:25 am  

HOWEVER,

When it comes to party conference season it makes for damn good shouting and a-whooping and a-hollering to the party faithful when you give the impression that you're going to force these shirkers and work-shy lower class plebs to work for their benefits.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:39 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

No one is being asked to work for nothing - those on the work programme are still drawing JSA

True but they are being forced to work for an amount of money that is way below the minimum wage.
Probably doing work that stops someone else from getting a job that would pay them the minimum wage.

The only winner here is Poundland getting free labour.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:14 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

The only winner here is Poundland getting free labour.

Indeed, and as I have said, that is the real issue.

The fact she's work shy and would rather toss it off volunteering in a museum is immeterial.