Work for your dole money...

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Is that not essentially lying on your CV?

No, I think he is talking about focusing your CV on the job you apply for. Choose the skills and experience you have to suit the role.

If you are going for an menial, operations sort of role focus on experience you have of similar. Perhaps you were part of a team, good at finding efficiencies, have experience of dealing with operations teams....

If you are going for a more senior, managerial/specific skilled role then promote yourself based upon experiences you have in this arena.

Going into KFC and saying "I want a job, and by the way Im a physicist" is a lot less sensible (IMO) than going in and saying "I want a job, Ive spent time in customer facing roles before"

 

[mick cooper]

No, I think he is talking about focusing your CV on the job you apply for. Choose the skills and experience you have to suit the role.

If you are going for an menial, operations sort of role focus on experience you have of similar. Perhaps you were part of a team, good at finding efficiencies, have experience of dealing with operations teams....

If you are going for a more senior, managerial/specific skilled role then promote yourself based upon experiences you have in this arena.

Going into KFC and saying "I want a job, and by the way Im a physicist" is a lot less sensible (IMO) than going in and saying "I want a job, Ive spent time in customer facing roles before"

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

No, I think he is talking about focusing your CV on the job you apply for. Choose the skills and experience you have to suit the role.

If you are going for an menial, operations sort of role focus on experience you have of similar. Perhaps you were part of a team, good at finding efficiencies, have experience of dealing with operations teams....

If you are going for a more senior, managerial/specific skilled role then promote yourself based upon experiences you have in this arena.

Going into KFC and saying "I want a job, and by the way Im a physicist" is a lot less sensible (IMO) than going in and saying "I want a job, Ive spent time in customer facing roles before"

Yeah but that's obvious and is what I, am I'm sure others have done. The problem arises when they look at your employment history, and they ask what your last salary was. I have never been a massively high flyer but when applying for roles where the salary is fifteen or twenty grand lower then what you were on in your last job then unavoidable questions and concerns are going to be in the employers mind with regard to how long you intend to stay in a low wage, potentially dead end position, for instance shelf stacking in tescos which I would have been happy to do until I got a better job, more relevant to my career and skillset.

 

[Richie]

One side of the argument I haven't considered is that will these companies start giving fewer jobs and just rely on these 'work for your benefits' people to make up the majority of their workforce?

 

[Leeds Spur]

You make the contract temp to perm within a mandated period. And they cannot hire again for the role within 12 months if they let the person go. Again, why do people look to pick holes in policies designed to give people a hand up? Are people that desperate not to work?

 

[Richie]

You make the contract temp to perm within a mandated period. And they cannot hire again for the role within 12 months if they let the person go. Again, why do people look to pick holes in policies designed to give people a hand up? Are people that desperate not to work?

Quite honestly I agree with the policy, but I wonder if companies will exploit it. Take Tesco for example, where is the incentive for them to create jobs if they can just constantly take on benefit claimants? If a business has a job for someone to do, why haven't they hired someone to do it?

I hope the government has rules in place for businesses, for example taking on a benefit claimant should only be allowed after the job has been advertised for a certain length of time or only a certain percentage (eg 5%) of their workforce are allowed to be benefit claimants.

It shouldn't be a case that businesses can identify a need and choose to take on benefit claimants for free rather than actually paying someone to do the job.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think not understanding the selection / interview process is naive

So you would suggest that people tailor their CV for the job they're going for? What if everyone is going in over-qualified for a post, you've tailored your CV thinking it's smarter to be 'leaner' in your approach, and you find that you're bombed out at the first hurdle because you took said-step? Further, let's say you do actually get through the interview process with your 'tailored' CV and you make it to a final round interview. Do you play dumb? Do you consistently make sure you give no hint of a greater skill set that could see you as 'over-qualified' for a job? That's not smart OR above-board, let alone healthy. Or are you suggesting that people who feel over-qualified for a job should just X out certain potential positions because, well, they're over-qualified, and instead sit and wait for the 'right' opportunity? What if they're over-qualified and middle-aged? Pasture? With early pension? You see where I'm going here mate...apart from on and on and on!!!! ;-)

 

[thfcsteff]

I think you obviously haven't been in the situations that some us have and that, should you ever be unfortunate enough to do so, you'll find that you're talking out yer arse!

Let me just say, my original comment was not even born of personal situations (I've been lucky and happy work-wise forever!)...it was born of empathy, a quality I see sorely lacking in today's society...

 

[southstand1882]

So you would suggest that people tailor their CV for the job they're going for? What if everyone is going in over-qualified for a post, you've tailored your CV thinking it's smarter to be 'leaner' in your approach, and you find that you're bombed out at the first hurdle because you took said-step? Further, let's say you do actually get through the interview process with your 'tailored' CV and you make it to a final round interview. Do you play dumb? Do you consistently make sure you give no hint of a greater skill set that could see you as 'over-qualified' for a job? That's not smart OR above-board, let alone healthy. Or are you suggesting that people who feel over-qualified for a job should just X out certain potential positions because, well, they're over-qualified, and instead sit and wait for the 'right' opportunity? What if they're over-qualified and middle-aged? Pasture? With early pension? You see where I'm going here mate...apart from on and on and on!!!! ;-)

Yes. Every single job. And I mean that for people going for ANY job.

Any less and you are mugging yourself off.

And if you do find yourself in the unfortunate position of applying for a job you are overqualified for, focus on skills you have that are RELEVANT for the role

Example:

Interviewer: "So Michael, tell me about your army work"

Michael: "I drove all sorts of vehicles. My driving license is clean. I have advanced driving certification X blah blah"

Interviewer: "Brilliant Michael, anything else you wish to add?"

(At this point, the fact that Michael is an electronics guru is not important. His past role as a sales director is also out of bounds.)

Instead, he would settle for:

Michael: "Thanks so much for your time. The van driver role sounds perfect for me. I'd love to work for your company"

It really isn't difficult.

And the chances of an employer up-scaling a blue collar job, because of a deluge of over qualified candidates is almost zero. :lol:

There's empathy, and there's the cold, hard, reality that some people need the truth spelt out to them.

 

[Papercut]

Having worked at the job centre many moons ago it showed me that not all is black and white.

I remember this Nigerian chap came in, lovely guy - educated and with a law degree. Wanted to do any kind of work but was told he couldn't claim JSA as he didn't have the right stamp, also couldn't work but had to claim some kind of income support (twas a long time ago). There were people living in phoneboxes desperate for money but there was some issue for those with NFA (no fixed abode).

There were also those who were happy picking up 50 odd quid, probably lived at home with their parent/s so no expenses. Lazy fudges who couldn't even get the the Job Centre on time and would cry "where's my money!"

There was also the case of a roadie. 6 kids, massive house and a bit of lolly in the pocket (all from the tax payer). He was going on a course and admitted that if he worked, he'd be worse off...

Oh there was also a case of a guy on income based only wanting his NI stamps but had to have the money too...


One huge problem I have with JSA is even if you have worked all your life, you are still the one being punished.

When I was made redundant, I went to sign on - purely for my NI stamps as I've found that if you don't the Inland Revenue start bothering you. So they gave me Contributions based JSA (effectivelty my money back), still had to sign on and fill that form showing them you were seeking (fair enough). Was told that after 6 months or so, had to still sign but wouldn't get any money due to wife earning more than ?ú50k (I think) - obviously not taking into consideration outgoings, debts, rent, child, etc - okay fair enough. My gripe was that even though I would not get any money, I still had to pay for eye tests, dental treatment, prescriptions (and I have psoriasis so need a lot of meds), etc - why? because I had worked previously... Had I never bothered, I would have got all that too.

I do think there should be some sort of community work but moreso for those on income based and who just seem never to work (it will also give them some experience and perhaps something to add on their CVs), for those with a history of work - I don't think they should need to as much.



On the C.V front, I've tailored (watered down) my CV to a particular job - wanted it as it was local but not as advanced as the work I had done in the City.

Oh and for those who fill application forms - use the Additional Information boxes - this will give you an advantage (I do a certain amount of recruitment at the mo'), do not get lazy and type in "see C.V". The only time CVs only are acceptable are for the higher end jobs.

 

[mick cooper]

Yes. Every single job. And I mean that for people going for ANY job.

Any less and you are mugging yourself off.

And if you do find yourself in the unfortunate position of applying for a job you are overqualified for, focus on skills you have that are RELEVANT for the role

Example:

Interviewer: "So Michael, tell me about your army work"

Michael: "I drove all sorts of vehicles. My driving license is clean. I have advanced driving certification X blah blah"

Interviewer: "Brilliant Michael, anything else you wish to add?"

(At this point, the fact that Michael is an electronics guru is not important. His past role as a sales director is also out of bounds.)

Instead, he would settle for:

Michael: "Thanks so much for your time. The van driver role sounds perfect for me. I'd love to work for your company"

It really isn't difficult.

And the chances of an employer up-scaling a blue collar job, because of a deluge of over qualified candidates is almost zero. :lol:

There's empathy, and there's the cold, hard, reality that some people need the truth spelt out to them.

I'm not sure why you chose me as the focus of your point

I have been doing precisely as you suggest for job applications for years

The fact of the matter is clear, if an employer wants a van driver, and I turn up with with my drivers licence with all of my licences (lorry, car, bike, tank) etc. You are going to get asked, what other driving jobs have you had, do you have references and what were you doing for all these years?
I was told straight out, we want a full time employee, not someone who's going to leave as soon as he finds a job more fitting to his background and education. For the Heathrow job I even told them I wanted out of the rat race, which was an absolute lie

So if your comment about needing the cold hard truth spelled out to me, was directed at me..... you might find that its you in a few years time. In both cases of long term unemployment it was because the company I worked for went under, I didn't lose my job because I wasn't good enough. When you get into that position, you look at the unemployed people and wonder why you are trapped in that situation, when all you want to do is work, and use the skills and knowledge you have accumulated. Its like you have been stained by the failure of your company.

All of this masks the original point about the long time benefits recipients, who have no ambition to find work - but you should be careful about some of your catch all comments, as they end up embracing people who don't fit the group you are trying to ring fence.

 

[southstand1882]

So if your comment about needing the cold hard truth spelled out to me, was directed at me.....

It wasn't. I was using your impressive skill-set as a great example.

Clearly you are very talented (look at where you are now, kicking back in your bermudas!)

But empathetic molly coddling will get you nowhere, unless you need cheering up

If I wanted to improve and actually secure a role, I'd avoid it like the plague

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Yes. Every single job. And I mean that for people going for ANY job.

Any less and you are mugging yourself off.

And if you do find yourself in the unfortunate position of applying for a job you are overqualified for, focus on skills you have that are RELEVANT for the role

Example:

Interviewer: "So Michael, tell me about your army work"

Michael: "I drove all sorts of vehicles. My driving license is clean. I have advanced driving certification X blah blah"

Interviewer: "Brilliant Michael, anything else you wish to add?"

(At this point, the fact that Michael is an electronics guru is not important. His past role as a sales director is also out of bounds.)

Instead, he would settle for:

Michael: "Thanks so much for your time. The van driver role sounds perfect for me. I'd love to work for your company"

It really isn't difficult.

And the chances of an employer up-scaling a blue collar job, because of a deluge of over qualified candidates is almost zero. :lol:

There's empathy, and there's the cold, hard, reality that some people need the truth spelt out to them.

You seem to be totally missing the point. It's not about up scaling blue collar jobs, it's about the recruitment process and employers beings reluctant to take on overqualified people because they are unlikely to stay in blue collar posts long term, ie they will continue looking for work once employed until they find a job which is more on a level both career and salary wise with what they were doing previously. This provides instability in the employer's work force and additional recruitment costs, hence why employers are often unwilling to take on overqualified applicants. There isn't just a deluge in overqualified applicants, there is a deluge in applicants full stop. Hence when an employer is comparing cvs, and who do you think they are going to choose to bring to interview, those applicants who only have experience in similar jobs or overqualified applicants? It doesn't take a genius to figure out the answer!

I'm not clear on what you are suggesting, I understand the point about tailoring your cv and covering letter to match the requirements of the job spec, but what is your solution re employment history and last salary, two key considerations when employers are looking at interviews to short list for interview, bearing in mind they often don't want short term candidates?

 

[Papercut]

I think it is a bit more common now that over-qualified people are applying for 'lesser' jobs due to the economic climate - companies are aware of this.

 

[Spursalot]

Yes. Every single job. And I mean that for people going for ANY job.

Any less and you are mugging yourself off.

And if you do find yourself in the unfortunate position of applying for a job you are overqualified for, focus on skills you have that are RELEVANT for the role

Example:

Interviewer: "So Michael, tell me about your army work"

Michael: "I drove all sorts of vehicles. My driving license is clean. I have advanced driving certification X blah blah"

Interviewer: "Brilliant Michael, anything else you wish to add?"

(At this point, the fact that Michael is an electronics guru is not important. His past role as a sales director is also out of bounds.)

Instead, he would settle for:

Michael: "Thanks so much for your time. The van driver role sounds perfect for me. I'd love to work for your company"

It really isn't difficult.

And the chances of an employer up-scaling a blue collar job, because of a deluge of over qualified candidates is almost zero. :lol:

There's empathy, and there's the cold, hard, reality that some people need the truth spelt out to them.

Question number x on the job application: 'What is your highest qualification?'


You can't get around that without lying.


Not 'what is your highest relevant qualification?'

 

[southstand1882]

I'm not clear on what you are suggesting, I understand the point about tailoring your cv and covering letter to match the requirements of the job spec, but what is your solution re employment history and last salary, two key considerations when employers are looking at interviews to short list for interview, bearing in mind they often don't want short term candidates?

Accentuate the relevant roles

Play down, or omit altogether, those that are likely to deem you overqualified

It is not a legal requirement for you to be 100% accurate on your CV

When you accept that, you'll understand the point I'm trying to make

 

[southstand1882]

Question number x on the job application: 'What is your highest qualification?'

You can't get around that without lying.

Not 'what is your highest relevant qualification?'

Leave out your phd if its not relevant

Stick down your a-levels

I promise you won't go to prison

But you might get the job

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Accentuate the relevant roles

Play down, or omit altogether, those that are likely to deem you overqualified

It is not a legal requirement for you to be 100% accurate on your CV

When you accept that, you'll understand the point I'm trying to make

I do understand what you are saying, but here are my problems with it:

I could and did play down those roles which might have lied to me being overqualified, but even then the job title, in my case internal auditor, would probably ring alarm bells vis a vis staying long term in a role as a shop floor worker/retail assistant/data entry clerk/warehouse operative etc.

I could leave those and similar roles off my cv, but then alarm bells would be ringing re huge gaps in my employment history, eg why are there several large gaps, has this guy spent time in prison etc.

Plus what about referees, should I ask them to lie about my role while working there? Should I lie about my last salary?

You can be a but creative with cvs, but deviate too much from the truth and you're only going to dig a massive hole for yourself!

 

[southstand1882]

I do understand what you are saying, but here are my problems with it:

I could and did play down those roles which might have lied to me being overqualified, but even then the job title, in my case internal auditor, would probably ring alarm bells vis a vis staying long term in a role as a shop floor worker/retail assistant/data entry clerk/warehouse operative etc.

I could leave those and similar roles off my cv, but then alarm bells would be ringing re huge gaps in my employment history, eg why are there several large aps, has this guy spent time in prison etc.

Plus what about referees, should I ask them to lie about my role while working there? Should I lie about my last salary?

You can be a but creative with cvs, but deviate too much from the truth and you're only going to dig a massive hole for yourself!

Just get them to call a different number and provide the reference yourself

Just change your voice or accent. Or use a disguise.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

:ross: