Well, I can't say I was surprised to see Stella romp to victory in the grand final of The Apprentice - I think nobody was, really. I rather enjoyed the episode. Not as exciting as Saturday's Strictly final, obviously, but still a jolly good hour spent in front of the box. The fired contestants were hauled in to help, and did with a good grace and some competent work. Baggsy's absence (along with Sandeesh's, Laura's and that other woman, what's her name?) was duly noted. Could he genuinely not make it, or was he sulking? I suspect the latter. Anyhow, the alcohol creation and branding was a resounding success, for Chris as well as Stella, and I think it was Stella's performance overall that clinched her success, rather than this week's task being an influencing factor. Didn't she do well?
So we reached the end of the drawn-out recruitment process that is The Apprentice. How Lord Sugar manages to keep interested in setting dubious and improbable tasks for that long is a feat worth mentioning... although his fee probably helps. As recruiters, it was interesting to see just how the candidates acted, and performed, in their quest to land their dream job. We saw them sell, pitch, squabble, lie and create in equal measure, in order to fight off the competition and win the contest. One wonders if the winning is more important than the prize - I for one wouldn't fancy working for Lord Sugar, no matter what six figure salary he offers - and whether it has been an anti-climax for Stella now she is in the job. Although some of the tasks seem a little... well... fabricated beyond all reason, they do serve a purpose - to let us see just what the contestants are made of. To separate the boys from the men, as it were. Skills such as leadership, sales prowess, presentation, branding and commonsense were all put under the microscope for us to see and judge. That's the fun, right? Judging the bunch of them. Wasn't it great to see them fail miserably whilst we sat smugly in front of the telly, knowing that we could have done it properly? Wasn't it fab to see them fall flat on their faces and then try to brazen it out in the boardroom whilst their fellow teammates ripped them to shreds and Lord Sugar just sat there, thinking "Loser!"? Whilst there were some there that we (I) loved to hate (Melissa, Alex, Sandeesh), you can't help but admire them - at least they had the guts to take on the tasks and give it a go. Bravo, wannabes! And now it's all over, like Strictly and The X Factor, at least for another year. Maybe next year The Apprentice auditions could be televised, like The X Factor, to give us a few more laughs... I for one would love to see THAT!
Whilst all's good for Stella, for the rest of us the snow has been causing chaos. I have been lucky to be able to even get up my hill, thanks to the efforts of several chaps in our street who worked tirelessly to dig out and grit the road. So no excuses for me not to get to work! Whilst I know that there are plenty out there who genuinely can't make it into the office because of the snow, ice and travel disruption, I suspect there are plenty more who have been using it as a convenient excuse not to leave their nice warm homes. Having been dragged out of my lovely bed to do the school run anyway, it makes no odds to me to come in. Keeps me out of trouble, and anyway, I get to sit next to a wonderful little heater all day. Last time it snowed, earlier this year, there was a distinct lack of post wending its way through to me. This time, however, all the Christmas cards, parcels and (unfortunately) bills have managed to find their way through the snow - and are even arriving earlier than usual! It hasn't stopped certain companies from blaming Royal Mail for not delivering... Two department stores, when asked why items were not ready to be picked up, blamed the Royal Mail for not making deliveries. This sounds a bit suspect, especially as we all seem to be receiving our post (and parcels) as normal. Come on, big names, stop shifting the blame. It seems that someone, somewhere, isn't doing their job...
And that's all folks... I am winding down for the holidays, the kids finish school today, and I am looking forward to a nice long rest (Star Wars lego building antics aside). All that remains for me to do is to raise a glass of Urbon, wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I'll be back in 2011 for your delectation!
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Friday, 17 December 2010
Bye Bye Baggsy (and Jamie and Jo)
Wasn't it good? Wasn't it fine? Oh how I loved Baggsy's face in the boardroom when he realised that Lord Sugar had finally realised - weeks later than the rest of us did - that he was, as LS so charmingly put it, "full of !@$*...
There isn't really much to say about this week's instalment - I am saving everything up for the eagerly anticipated final -except that it didn't come as a surprise to anyone, I think, to see Stella up there in the top two. Chris, for me, was a proper dark horse though, pipping other previous favourites to the post in the end.
I do have to mention, though, the utterly repellent interviews (and interviewers). Who the heck interviews in such an aggressive, invasive and downright insulting way any more? These interviews couldn't be further removed from real life interviews... or at least I hope they are... I thought this type of inquisition went out with the Spanish one, but Lord Sugar's evil minions seem to revel in making candidates squirm. Although I couldn't help but chuckle when Baggs greeted Margaret by her first name and was firmly put in his place (the gutter). It's natural to be nervous of interviews, but if they really are as bad as all this, nobody would ever apply for a job! Nowadays, interviews tend to be less interrogative and more competency based, with an emphasis on the positive rather than looking for ways to call your candidate a liar or a blagger... as funny as it is to witness.
And so, I wait with baited breath for the final of what has proven to be, again, a rather enjoyable series. I particularly love the way the fired contestants get brought back in to help the finalists - with all the sour grapes they can muster. Come Sunday evening, I'm going to curled up on the sofa in my dressing gown, glass of wine in my hand, laughing my head off... because I don't really care who wins, just bring on the carnage...
Friday, 10 December 2010
Well, wasn't this week's Apprentice a shocker?
Sent off to set up and run a London tour company, the remaining six contestants toddled off in their usual inimitable style to argue, negotiate and muck up their way through their day on the open-top buses.With Stuart leading Team Apollo, it was always on the cards that this one would be entertaining. Apollo decided to do a "Cockney" tour, whilst Synergy opted for a Horror tour of London. Highlights of the episode included Liz alienating a couple of jellied eel sellers by asking them to speak Cockney to their clients, Stella and Jamie's fantastic singalong sessions on their respective buses and the near punch up between Baggsy and Chris. How Christ resisted smacking Baggs the Brand in his cakehole, goodness only knows. He's a stronger man than I. The swearing that ensued from Baggsy's attempts to steal Chris's' customers was enough to make me blush (well, I may be exaggerating a BIT...), but it gave me a jolly good laugh. Things looked pretty shaky for Synergy for a while, after Chris kindly agreed to give the Tourist Centre 20% of all revenue for their assistance in selling tickets - a fact which Jo was horrifed to discover and went hell for leather trying to backtrack on the deal (being called "unprofessional" in the process) - but in the end they made the most money and walked away to victory.
With only three remaining in Apollo, obviously all of them would make it into the boardroom for the final verdict on who shouls stay and who should go - but what happened next was, to say the least, a bit of a shocker. After the usual shenanigans, slag-offs and last-minute pleas, it was the hardworking doe-eyed Liz who got the boot - for being "nothing special", according to Lord Shugs. Hmm. Everybody in the house seemed absolutely shocked to see Stuart walk back through the door, as seemingly the failure of the task had been down to him. From over-pricing the tickets, losing the bid to work with the Tourist Centre and a slanging match in the street with a member of the competition, Baggs hardly showered himself in glory. And yet, by some quirk of fate (or Lord Sugar), here he was, free to fight another day. How could this be?
It's been clear from the start that Baggsy, with his ability to talk rubbish, massive ego and utter lack of any insight, would be a favourite of the Apprentice-Master himself... why? That old chestnut - he sees himself in him. Yawn. Surely that's not a GOOD thing?! Yes, OK, Baggs has chutzpah, he promises to make Lord Sugar millions AND he is not just a one-trick pony... in fact he claims to have a whole field of the damn things. But surely this isn't enough to keep him in above other, consistently performing and hard working contestants like Liz? Let's look at the evidence - Liz has, over the previous weeks, been an excellent salesperson, broken the boardroom record for sales, and is a grafter. She shows initiative and brain power, and even in this failed task outsold Baggs by almost 100%. What has Baggs actually achieved? Antagonising suppliers, physically chasing punters down a street, trying to steal customers from his competitors, bad-mouthing everyone, showing no humility or professionalism, and spouting utter garbage about how amazing he is - which nobody believes except, sadly, Lord Sugar.
What does this teach any of us about the state of the world? That consistently delivering doesn't reap rewards? That integrity and professionalism means nothing? That bigging yourself up to within an inch of your life actually fools some people? I thought that Lord Sugar was looking for the sort of person that could be trusted to work hard, think smart, show some respect and deliver the goods. My bad. What a shame that Lord Sugar seems to hold Stuart in such regard. For all his talk about what kind of person he is looking for, at the end of the day, if someone reminds him of himself no matter how bolshie, gobby or irritiating they may be (although come to think of it, that's what makes them like him), he'll pick them to stay in at the expense of someone who could actually be an asset. There's a few double standards creeping in here too - after telling Jo she was unprofessional for trying to renege on the Tourist Centre deal, and Chris for trying to force sales of his crisps whilst in Germany the other week, suddenly Baggsy's attempt to steal Synergy's customers is overlooked. This could be a simple case of vanity hiring - when a hiring manager chooses to employ someone in their own image. I would think that an employer needs to hire someone to complement their own skillset, not replicate it. Baggs has picked up on the importance of mirroring within an interview situation, almost to the point of mimickry. Unfortunately, Lord Sugar doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that Stuart is possibly beyond redemption, no matter how he talks the talk, and is one of the mouthiest and unlikeable contestants yet. I think this is a worrying role model and a bad example to set... what's it teaching those young people watching the show? That it's ok to be nasty to other people, perform poorly and fail at tasks, as long as you know how to press the hiring manager's buttons? Typical old Lord Sugar, always looking out for someone just like himself to bring into his business empire. If he ever found his doppelganger, however, he'd surely regret the day he hired them...
Sent off to set up and run a London tour company, the remaining six contestants toddled off in their usual inimitable style to argue, negotiate and muck up their way through their day on the open-top buses.With Stuart leading Team Apollo, it was always on the cards that this one would be entertaining. Apollo decided to do a "Cockney" tour, whilst Synergy opted for a Horror tour of London. Highlights of the episode included Liz alienating a couple of jellied eel sellers by asking them to speak Cockney to their clients, Stella and Jamie's fantastic singalong sessions on their respective buses and the near punch up between Baggsy and Chris. How Christ resisted smacking Baggs the Brand in his cakehole, goodness only knows. He's a stronger man than I. The swearing that ensued from Baggsy's attempts to steal Chris's' customers was enough to make me blush (well, I may be exaggerating a BIT...), but it gave me a jolly good laugh. Things looked pretty shaky for Synergy for a while, after Chris kindly agreed to give the Tourist Centre 20% of all revenue for their assistance in selling tickets - a fact which Jo was horrifed to discover and went hell for leather trying to backtrack on the deal (being called "unprofessional" in the process) - but in the end they made the most money and walked away to victory.
With only three remaining in Apollo, obviously all of them would make it into the boardroom for the final verdict on who shouls stay and who should go - but what happened next was, to say the least, a bit of a shocker. After the usual shenanigans, slag-offs and last-minute pleas, it was the hardworking doe-eyed Liz who got the boot - for being "nothing special", according to Lord Shugs. Hmm. Everybody in the house seemed absolutely shocked to see Stuart walk back through the door, as seemingly the failure of the task had been down to him. From over-pricing the tickets, losing the bid to work with the Tourist Centre and a slanging match in the street with a member of the competition, Baggs hardly showered himself in glory. And yet, by some quirk of fate (or Lord Sugar), here he was, free to fight another day. How could this be?
It's been clear from the start that Baggsy, with his ability to talk rubbish, massive ego and utter lack of any insight, would be a favourite of the Apprentice-Master himself... why? That old chestnut - he sees himself in him. Yawn. Surely that's not a GOOD thing?! Yes, OK, Baggs has chutzpah, he promises to make Lord Sugar millions AND he is not just a one-trick pony... in fact he claims to have a whole field of the damn things. But surely this isn't enough to keep him in above other, consistently performing and hard working contestants like Liz? Let's look at the evidence - Liz has, over the previous weeks, been an excellent salesperson, broken the boardroom record for sales, and is a grafter. She shows initiative and brain power, and even in this failed task outsold Baggs by almost 100%. What has Baggs actually achieved? Antagonising suppliers, physically chasing punters down a street, trying to steal customers from his competitors, bad-mouthing everyone, showing no humility or professionalism, and spouting utter garbage about how amazing he is - which nobody believes except, sadly, Lord Sugar.
What does this teach any of us about the state of the world? That consistently delivering doesn't reap rewards? That integrity and professionalism means nothing? That bigging yourself up to within an inch of your life actually fools some people? I thought that Lord Sugar was looking for the sort of person that could be trusted to work hard, think smart, show some respect and deliver the goods. My bad. What a shame that Lord Sugar seems to hold Stuart in such regard. For all his talk about what kind of person he is looking for, at the end of the day, if someone reminds him of himself no matter how bolshie, gobby or irritiating they may be (although come to think of it, that's what makes them like him), he'll pick them to stay in at the expense of someone who could actually be an asset. There's a few double standards creeping in here too - after telling Jo she was unprofessional for trying to renege on the Tourist Centre deal, and Chris for trying to force sales of his crisps whilst in Germany the other week, suddenly Baggsy's attempt to steal Synergy's customers is overlooked. This could be a simple case of vanity hiring - when a hiring manager chooses to employ someone in their own image. I would think that an employer needs to hire someone to complement their own skillset, not replicate it. Baggs has picked up on the importance of mirroring within an interview situation, almost to the point of mimickry. Unfortunately, Lord Sugar doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that Stuart is possibly beyond redemption, no matter how he talks the talk, and is one of the mouthiest and unlikeable contestants yet. I think this is a worrying role model and a bad example to set... what's it teaching those young people watching the show? That it's ok to be nasty to other people, perform poorly and fail at tasks, as long as you know how to press the hiring manager's buttons? Typical old Lord Sugar, always looking out for someone just like himself to bring into his business empire. If he ever found his doppelganger, however, he'd surely regret the day he hired them...
Friday, 3 December 2010
The Apprentice - Negotiation, negotiation, negotiation...
One of my favourite tasks of The Apprentice (who can forget Michael Sophocles and the kosher chicken fiasco of 2008?) - take a list of 10 items to find and then buy at the lowest price - was the offering of this week's episode. On the surface it sounds pretty simple, but, as we've learned from previous experience, it is a tragedy waiting to happen. Jamie, heading the boys' team, had one strategy and one strategy alone for winning this task - race around London, find the items and start by offering 30% of the asking price. Liz, managing the girls, had a more organised strategy - locate the items, plan each purchase and location, then work on the negotiation on arrival. With Jo going great guns from the beginning, and Jamie stumped on trying to find a tikka (the gold type, not the curry), it looked like the girls were off to a flying start, especially as they managed to find out what the Blue Book was long before the boys did.
Once the boys had found the items, though, they showed some remarkable negotiation skills. Jamie was extremely persuasive and wouldn't take no for an answer, whilst Chris - following his leader's mantra of "always have a story when negotiating" - came up with some inspired reasons for needing items at a good price. My favourite gem was his bargaining tool for the Blue Book, which was a convoluted lie regarding a desperate brother and his impending test for The Knowledge. Amazingly, he managed to get his discount, along with a few laughs for good measure. He lied again about a tartan loving Granny in order to get a discount on the fabric, and managed to snag a great bargain - extremely entertaining. Chris may even be the one to watch... The girls' organisational skills really paid off for them - by sourcing and ordering the kitchen worktop in advance, they saved the wasted time and effort that Jamie spent on trying to find it - and they managed to find all ten items, albeit returning slightly late and facing financial penalties. Unfortunately, Laura's miscalculations about the price of truffles (and trying to buy them from a restaurant) put the dampers on their chance of victory, and in the end it was Jamie's team (even with over £500 of penalties added on for failing to find two of the items), who walked away with the weekend in Paris.
So, what can we learn from this latest installment? Well, that it all came down to negotiation. The boys were far stronger at negotiating the best prices, regardless of their slapdash approach to resourcing the items. The girls' failure was, that although they researched the items well, they went out blind into the marketplace in terms of pricing and negotiation strategy. It was also commented on by Lord Sugar that they failed to adapt themselves to the situation and the seller - the corporate approach of deal making and handshaking doesn't suit a small independent store. Does careful planning aid negotiation? Not in this case, although it could in the right circumstances e.g. if the product and market has been identified and price checked. Negotiation is an extremely useful tool in the job market, as anyone who has had a job interview should know.
So, how should we negotiate a job offer? When do we talk salary? Well, we need to start by making sure we have used our skills as a chameleon to adapt to the environment - a skill which Liz and Stella were sadly lacking. Being able to adapt our social and communication skills to a situation is an incredibly important part of negotiation. It's not about pretending to be something we're not, just realising that different people respond to different things, and certain situations require certain handling and personality traits. The negotiation of a job offer is really important for both employer and employee, and sets the stage for a satisfactory working relationship. For the jobseeker, negotiating too hard can result in losing the opportunity, but not negotiating enough could lead to dissatisfaction if we accept a role where we feel we should and could be paid more for. If we are lucky enough to have other offers, these can be used as a starting point for salary negotiation of a new role, or alternatively as a stick to beat an existing employer with should the promotion or pay rise we feel we have earned is not forthcoming. As the boys learnt, spontaneity is also a good thing - playing by ear allows us to adapt a strategy in real time, rather than planning it all ahead and being too rigid. We also need to know our potential employer and the flexibility they may have in salary offerings - for example, a large company where salaries are set or banded for many employees are unlikely to be able to move much, whereas an SME can usually offer more flexibility in terms of benchmarking indivual salaries. What it all boils down to is, essentially, being able to use our negotiation skills in an effective and appropriate manner.
Why not take your inspiration from Chris? Just leave out the tall stories....
Once the boys had found the items, though, they showed some remarkable negotiation skills. Jamie was extremely persuasive and wouldn't take no for an answer, whilst Chris - following his leader's mantra of "always have a story when negotiating" - came up with some inspired reasons for needing items at a good price. My favourite gem was his bargaining tool for the Blue Book, which was a convoluted lie regarding a desperate brother and his impending test for The Knowledge. Amazingly, he managed to get his discount, along with a few laughs for good measure. He lied again about a tartan loving Granny in order to get a discount on the fabric, and managed to snag a great bargain - extremely entertaining. Chris may even be the one to watch... The girls' organisational skills really paid off for them - by sourcing and ordering the kitchen worktop in advance, they saved the wasted time and effort that Jamie spent on trying to find it - and they managed to find all ten items, albeit returning slightly late and facing financial penalties. Unfortunately, Laura's miscalculations about the price of truffles (and trying to buy them from a restaurant) put the dampers on their chance of victory, and in the end it was Jamie's team (even with over £500 of penalties added on for failing to find two of the items), who walked away with the weekend in Paris.
So, what can we learn from this latest installment? Well, that it all came down to negotiation. The boys were far stronger at negotiating the best prices, regardless of their slapdash approach to resourcing the items. The girls' failure was, that although they researched the items well, they went out blind into the marketplace in terms of pricing and negotiation strategy. It was also commented on by Lord Sugar that they failed to adapt themselves to the situation and the seller - the corporate approach of deal making and handshaking doesn't suit a small independent store. Does careful planning aid negotiation? Not in this case, although it could in the right circumstances e.g. if the product and market has been identified and price checked. Negotiation is an extremely useful tool in the job market, as anyone who has had a job interview should know.
So, how should we negotiate a job offer? When do we talk salary? Well, we need to start by making sure we have used our skills as a chameleon to adapt to the environment - a skill which Liz and Stella were sadly lacking. Being able to adapt our social and communication skills to a situation is an incredibly important part of negotiation. It's not about pretending to be something we're not, just realising that different people respond to different things, and certain situations require certain handling and personality traits. The negotiation of a job offer is really important for both employer and employee, and sets the stage for a satisfactory working relationship. For the jobseeker, negotiating too hard can result in losing the opportunity, but not negotiating enough could lead to dissatisfaction if we accept a role where we feel we should and could be paid more for. If we are lucky enough to have other offers, these can be used as a starting point for salary negotiation of a new role, or alternatively as a stick to beat an existing employer with should the promotion or pay rise we feel we have earned is not forthcoming. As the boys learnt, spontaneity is also a good thing - playing by ear allows us to adapt a strategy in real time, rather than planning it all ahead and being too rigid. We also need to know our potential employer and the flexibility they may have in salary offerings - for example, a large company where salaries are set or banded for many employees are unlikely to be able to move much, whereas an SME can usually offer more flexibility in terms of benchmarking indivual salaries. What it all boils down to is, essentially, being able to use our negotiation skills in an effective and appropriate manner.
Why not take your inspiration from Chris? Just leave out the tall stories....
Friday, 26 November 2010
Crisps and Cretins
God I'm hungry (and it's not quite lunchtime), which reminds me I haven't blogged yet about this week's Apprentice. The crisps task, eh? Or How To Succeed Where No Other British Crisp Manufacturer Has. Easy peasy for the boys and girls of The Apprentice, given their top-level business acumen, fantastic client management skills and all-round fabulosity (hey! A Melissa word...). Hmm. Lord Sugar has whittled the contestants down to the final eight, and if this task hasn't put them off, nothing will. So, the brief: design some new flavours of crisps, get them made, take them to Hamburg and flog them to the Germans. Okay, sounds simple enough. Unless you don't know the first thing about making crisps, which we can safely assume they didn't. Stella's team went straight in for the "Classic British" theme, coming up with roast dinner flavour and the more dodgy sounding stilton and paprika. Stilton and PAPRIKA? WHY? At least it's different, I suppose. Chris's team decided to work on traditional German flavours.... again, WHY? Surely in Germany they already HAVE German style crisps, and don't need a bunch of Brits coming over to sell them some more. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, Christopher and Jamie fell in love with a sausage and curry fast food snack, and off they went to make the crisps to match. Yuck.
Highlights of the episode included: Christopher's revelation that he hates Germany and Germans, with no reason given (or if there was it was deemed unbroadcastable), Laura's sulking and stropping (especially when told she spoke waaaay too fast) and Baggsy's sheer brilliance at being able to count to 20 in German. Something my 13 year old son can do, and HE doesn't act like he has the genius of Stephen Hawking. My son was watching with me as it happens, and he wasn't impressed. But then, he is never impressed by anyone on the show, to be honest. It was painfully obvious, really, that Stella's team was going to win. Not only were their flavours, well, edible, but they made some good pitches and got in there first. Chris's team made a MASSIVE mistake when they were offered a 9am appointment at The Marriott but Christopher and Jamie changed it to 1pm and guess what? - Stella and Joanna have already been there and walked away with a sizeable order. Didn't see THAT one coming... As Jamie would say, "the early bird catches the birm", or something like that.
Chris, panicking now he was set for the boardroom for the umpteenth time, dragged Christopher and Jamie along for the ride. I must admit, I don't like that Christopher much (the slimeball), but did feel a bit sorry for him when he was fired. Chris and Jamie managed to wriggle their respective ways out of an elbowing, whilst poor Christopher couldn't sweet talk Lord Sugar over, being told that although he was a hard grafter, he just wasn't "entrepreneurial enough". Hmm. One suspects that what Lord Sugar meant was, doesn't talk rubbish enough. It seems to be the way forward, don't you think? Although Lord S has often decried the verbose, he seems to like them, really. Maybe there's a moral in this tale, you know. Or even two. One - don't sell German crisps to Germans... they already HAVE them. Two - Hard work is all very well, but if you can't talk the talk, walking the walk ain't going to get you far. And there's a third - Counting to 20 in German does NOT make you a brainiac.
Highlights of the episode included: Christopher's revelation that he hates Germany and Germans, with no reason given (or if there was it was deemed unbroadcastable), Laura's sulking and stropping (especially when told she spoke waaaay too fast) and Baggsy's sheer brilliance at being able to count to 20 in German. Something my 13 year old son can do, and HE doesn't act like he has the genius of Stephen Hawking. My son was watching with me as it happens, and he wasn't impressed. But then, he is never impressed by anyone on the show, to be honest. It was painfully obvious, really, that Stella's team was going to win. Not only were their flavours, well, edible, but they made some good pitches and got in there first. Chris's team made a MASSIVE mistake when they were offered a 9am appointment at The Marriott but Christopher and Jamie changed it to 1pm and guess what? - Stella and Joanna have already been there and walked away with a sizeable order. Didn't see THAT one coming... As Jamie would say, "the early bird catches the birm", or something like that.
Chris, panicking now he was set for the boardroom for the umpteenth time, dragged Christopher and Jamie along for the ride. I must admit, I don't like that Christopher much (the slimeball), but did feel a bit sorry for him when he was fired. Chris and Jamie managed to wriggle their respective ways out of an elbowing, whilst poor Christopher couldn't sweet talk Lord Sugar over, being told that although he was a hard grafter, he just wasn't "entrepreneurial enough". Hmm. One suspects that what Lord Sugar meant was, doesn't talk rubbish enough. It seems to be the way forward, don't you think? Although Lord S has often decried the verbose, he seems to like them, really. Maybe there's a moral in this tale, you know. Or even two. One - don't sell German crisps to Germans... they already HAVE them. Two - Hard work is all very well, but if you can't talk the talk, walking the walk ain't going to get you far. And there's a third - Counting to 20 in German does NOT make you a brainiac.
Friday, 19 November 2010
The Great Escape... and a Royal Wedding!
Quel surprise, I watched The Apprentice this week. Well, watched isn't truly accurate - I was scoffing chocolate and (lots of) wine whilst it happened to be on in the background - so forgive my fuzziness...
So, Sandeesh finally got the chance to be PM, as did our perennial favourite prat, Baggsy. Would this be Sandeesh's chance to finally show Lord Sugar what she's capable of. Sadly, no. Would this be Stuart's chance to finally show us that he's not just a mouthy arrogant plonker? Sadly, no.. but for the entertainment factor, he just can't be beaten. The teams were sent to Pinewood Studios ("What? The furniture store?" asks Sandeesh....) to choose a backdrop for their next task - enticing children to fake race fake cars against said backdrop to produce dvds for their proud parents to spend a tenner on. Off to Westfield Shopping Centre next, to set up for the task and get going with the moneymaking. Long story short - Baggs irritated the hell out of everyone on his team (as well as some of the doting parents who bought the dvd, when asked to pay £12 rather than the £10 previously quoted), Sandeesh seemed to DO something this week rather than just moaning, and all the kids had a great time! I couldn't for the life of me ascertain if Mr Baggs actually did anything in the task, or just left the others to crack on with it while he ponced around flapping his big mouth - by this time I was merrily opening another bottle. Anyway, crunch time came and - to my shock - the Baggs Brand had won the profit wars by a very small margin. So, into the boardroom again for poor old Sandeesh. And this time, after wheedling her way past The Sugar twice before, she was finally sent home, the only time she did ANYTHING! Chris and Liz tore all her arguments apart, and Lord Sugar did what he seemed to be putting off all series - got rid of the huge-eyed madam. Back in the house, the victory of Sturat's team didn't seem to be resonating with happiness... nobody seemed to think he had deserved the win. Especially not Stella, his team-mate, who told him point blank that the other team should have won. Ouch. Can't wait for next week... who needs competition from the other team when your own don't even like you? Oh Baggsy, your brand isn't working for me...
Moving on, whilst Lord Sugar has been firing recruits this week, the Royal Family are hiring. Prince William and Kate Middleton have (finally) announced their engagement and a wedding is planned for spring/summer next year. How exciting! Opinions seem to be split on this - people are either 100% behind what promises to be an all-out meringue fest, or resentful that "our" tax money will be spent on the outdated principle of monarchy. Jeez, can't everyone just be happy for them? Yes, we will end up paying out for the wedding, but what a treat it will be for all the family (especially if we get the day off work/school)! I remember Charles and Di's wedding as one of the most exciting days I had when I was 5. We all sat together and watched the visual display (on the telly, obviously, we weren't invited for real) and I had my first ever taste of babycham... setting the stage for an addiction to sparkly drinks. I blame my parents. And, importantly for the economy, the royal wedding will bring additional ££££££££££££ into the country (in excess of £1billion, with £750m from tourism alone). Sales of wine and champagne are set to soar, with people celebrating in their own homes and having parties - I might have a little one of my own. Or I could just keep the champers for myself. And what better for the country in these uncertain times than something to look forward to celebrating, the marriage of our future king. Whilst it's all very exciting (at least to me!), I wouldn't fancy being that Kate Middleton. In-laws are bad enough at the best of times, but marrying into the Royal Family must be a challenge of nightmarish proportions. Look at poor old Di, she was famously unhappy with the whole bally lot of 'em. Being recruited into the Windsor clan must be almost as bad as being hired by Lord Sugar.
Maybe being fired is a great escape after all...
So, Sandeesh finally got the chance to be PM, as did our perennial favourite prat, Baggsy. Would this be Sandeesh's chance to finally show Lord Sugar what she's capable of. Sadly, no. Would this be Stuart's chance to finally show us that he's not just a mouthy arrogant plonker? Sadly, no.. but for the entertainment factor, he just can't be beaten. The teams were sent to Pinewood Studios ("What? The furniture store?" asks Sandeesh....) to choose a backdrop for their next task - enticing children to fake race fake cars against said backdrop to produce dvds for their proud parents to spend a tenner on. Off to Westfield Shopping Centre next, to set up for the task and get going with the moneymaking. Long story short - Baggs irritated the hell out of everyone on his team (as well as some of the doting parents who bought the dvd, when asked to pay £12 rather than the £10 previously quoted), Sandeesh seemed to DO something this week rather than just moaning, and all the kids had a great time! I couldn't for the life of me ascertain if Mr Baggs actually did anything in the task, or just left the others to crack on with it while he ponced around flapping his big mouth - by this time I was merrily opening another bottle. Anyway, crunch time came and - to my shock - the Baggs Brand had won the profit wars by a very small margin. So, into the boardroom again for poor old Sandeesh. And this time, after wheedling her way past The Sugar twice before, she was finally sent home, the only time she did ANYTHING! Chris and Liz tore all her arguments apart, and Lord Sugar did what he seemed to be putting off all series - got rid of the huge-eyed madam. Back in the house, the victory of Sturat's team didn't seem to be resonating with happiness... nobody seemed to think he had deserved the win. Especially not Stella, his team-mate, who told him point blank that the other team should have won. Ouch. Can't wait for next week... who needs competition from the other team when your own don't even like you? Oh Baggsy, your brand isn't working for me...
Moving on, whilst Lord Sugar has been firing recruits this week, the Royal Family are hiring. Prince William and Kate Middleton have (finally) announced their engagement and a wedding is planned for spring/summer next year. How exciting! Opinions seem to be split on this - people are either 100% behind what promises to be an all-out meringue fest, or resentful that "our" tax money will be spent on the outdated principle of monarchy. Jeez, can't everyone just be happy for them? Yes, we will end up paying out for the wedding, but what a treat it will be for all the family (especially if we get the day off work/school)! I remember Charles and Di's wedding as one of the most exciting days I had when I was 5. We all sat together and watched the visual display (on the telly, obviously, we weren't invited for real) and I had my first ever taste of babycham... setting the stage for an addiction to sparkly drinks. I blame my parents. And, importantly for the economy, the royal wedding will bring additional ££££££££££££ into the country (in excess of £1billion, with £750m from tourism alone). Sales of wine and champagne are set to soar, with people celebrating in their own homes and having parties - I might have a little one of my own. Or I could just keep the champers for myself. And what better for the country in these uncertain times than something to look forward to celebrating, the marriage of our future king. Whilst it's all very exciting (at least to me!), I wouldn't fancy being that Kate Middleton. In-laws are bad enough at the best of times, but marrying into the Royal Family must be a challenge of nightmarish proportions. Look at poor old Di, she was famously unhappy with the whole bally lot of 'em. Being recruited into the Windsor clan must be almost as bad as being hired by Lord Sugar.
Maybe being fired is a great escape after all...
Friday, 5 November 2010
Hold the recycled clothes and hold your tongues...
God I love The Apprentice. It makes me feel better about myself - I look like a paragon of competence next to some of these muppets. The contestants muddle their way through from task to task, messing up, moaning and bitching their way along the path to the boardroom. Mistakes pile up by the dozen, and this week was no exception.
Now, I love fashion (like most of us girls out there), so was interested to see what would happen when the teams were tasked with setting up a one day boutique in Manchester's Trafford centre. I am by no means a fashionista, but I like to think I know what makes a good outfit... unlike some of our erstwhile contenders. And I absolutely loved the sparkly, blinging party dresses that Synergy managed to blag - not surprisingly, given their enthusiasm for the clothes in comparison with Apollo's po-faced silence when confronted with the rail of beauties. So we had some WAG-ready LBDs and sequined frocks, brilliant, and brilliantly pitched for by Liz. Paloma managed to secure some "recycled" garments... clothes made out of old suits and ties, sold at extortionate prices for something that looked like a tramp had robbed a charity shop and taken a pair of scissors to fashion himself an outfit or two. Yuck.
Anyway, the shops were opened the next day, ready for some sales - proper sales, not like last week's Baby Glows and showerhead sales which all turned out to be fake, oops sorry, hypothetical. Alex (you know, the one resembling a goblin), self-proclaimed expert on the Trafford Centre geography, messed up by choosing a promotional pitch too far away from the shop, but redeemed himself by securing a short advert which was played on the big screen in the centre every fifteen minutes. The WAG dresses were flying off the shelves, Paloma and Alex were rowing about the placement of clothes rails, nobody wanted to buy the hooded waistcoats made out of old M&S suits, and Stella was sat in her boutique's window clad in a green sparkly dress, prompting Nick to compare her to an Amsterdam prozzie. Nice.
It was slightly predictable that Synergy would win the task, but impressively Apollo were only £500 behind. If only Chris had been able to sell another couple of the hideous tie dresses. And wasn't the final showdown a humdinger? Not surprisingly, Paloma dragged Alex (who she had already hinted at being to blame for the failure of the task) into the boardroom... but also Sandeesh, claiming she was overall a "weaker candidate". Interesting tactics. But ones that seemed they might work, despite Lord Sugar's initial disapporoval. It was all going so well, with Alex and Paloma snapping at each other like grouchy poodles, Paloma driving the point home that Alex failed at the pitch location task, and Alex reiterating that his advertising brainwave had more than made up for it. Paloma even told Alex that everyone else on the team found him irritating - really? Can't imagine why... now I think about it, maybe he's more like a bulldog than a goblin. Anyhoo, things were really kicking off about now, but with Paloma holding her own so well, and Lord Sugar starting to consider his point about Sandeesh being a useless waste of space, it seemed that she would live to fight (and I mean literally fight, that girl is scary) another day. And then she started laying into all and sundry, giving Alex and Sandeesh an real ear battering, and Alan just lost the plot at that point.
Paloma was fired, and it couldn't have happened to a nastier person. She made Melissa look like Mother Theresa, for God's sake. She may have had all the business savvy in the world, all the commercial experience and team leading skills, whatever ... but she hadn't learnt the most important rule of the boardroom - when to keep quiet. As Lord Sugar pointed out, she'd talked herself out of staying on. Nobody wants to work with an aggressive cow like that, after all. Poor little Alex looked like he'd faint with relief when told he was staying on, and Sandeesh had dodged the bullet again. I think it's all too easy to keep on talking when the moment has passed, and talk ourselves out of something we want, especially when we let personal opinions (Paloma's seeming hatred for Alex for example) get in the way of our ambition, intent and focus. She deserved to go, that's for sure. And the lesson learned from this? Shut up and put up, at least for the short term, if it helps you get what you want. I just wish I could get this across to my kids. I could always set an example for them, I suppose, but short of a tongue amputation, I can't see that working...
Now, I love fashion (like most of us girls out there), so was interested to see what would happen when the teams were tasked with setting up a one day boutique in Manchester's Trafford centre. I am by no means a fashionista, but I like to think I know what makes a good outfit... unlike some of our erstwhile contenders. And I absolutely loved the sparkly, blinging party dresses that Synergy managed to blag - not surprisingly, given their enthusiasm for the clothes in comparison with Apollo's po-faced silence when confronted with the rail of beauties. So we had some WAG-ready LBDs and sequined frocks, brilliant, and brilliantly pitched for by Liz. Paloma managed to secure some "recycled" garments... clothes made out of old suits and ties, sold at extortionate prices for something that looked like a tramp had robbed a charity shop and taken a pair of scissors to fashion himself an outfit or two. Yuck.
Anyway, the shops were opened the next day, ready for some sales - proper sales, not like last week's Baby Glows and showerhead sales which all turned out to be fake, oops sorry, hypothetical. Alex (you know, the one resembling a goblin), self-proclaimed expert on the Trafford Centre geography, messed up by choosing a promotional pitch too far away from the shop, but redeemed himself by securing a short advert which was played on the big screen in the centre every fifteen minutes. The WAG dresses were flying off the shelves, Paloma and Alex were rowing about the placement of clothes rails, nobody wanted to buy the hooded waistcoats made out of old M&S suits, and Stella was sat in her boutique's window clad in a green sparkly dress, prompting Nick to compare her to an Amsterdam prozzie. Nice.
It was slightly predictable that Synergy would win the task, but impressively Apollo were only £500 behind. If only Chris had been able to sell another couple of the hideous tie dresses. And wasn't the final showdown a humdinger? Not surprisingly, Paloma dragged Alex (who she had already hinted at being to blame for the failure of the task) into the boardroom... but also Sandeesh, claiming she was overall a "weaker candidate". Interesting tactics. But ones that seemed they might work, despite Lord Sugar's initial disapporoval. It was all going so well, with Alex and Paloma snapping at each other like grouchy poodles, Paloma driving the point home that Alex failed at the pitch location task, and Alex reiterating that his advertising brainwave had more than made up for it. Paloma even told Alex that everyone else on the team found him irritating - really? Can't imagine why... now I think about it, maybe he's more like a bulldog than a goblin. Anyhoo, things were really kicking off about now, but with Paloma holding her own so well, and Lord Sugar starting to consider his point about Sandeesh being a useless waste of space, it seemed that she would live to fight (and I mean literally fight, that girl is scary) another day. And then she started laying into all and sundry, giving Alex and Sandeesh an real ear battering, and Alan just lost the plot at that point.
Paloma was fired, and it couldn't have happened to a nastier person. She made Melissa look like Mother Theresa, for God's sake. She may have had all the business savvy in the world, all the commercial experience and team leading skills, whatever ... but she hadn't learnt the most important rule of the boardroom - when to keep quiet. As Lord Sugar pointed out, she'd talked herself out of staying on. Nobody wants to work with an aggressive cow like that, after all. Poor little Alex looked like he'd faint with relief when told he was staying on, and Sandeesh had dodged the bullet again. I think it's all too easy to keep on talking when the moment has passed, and talk ourselves out of something we want, especially when we let personal opinions (Paloma's seeming hatred for Alex for example) get in the way of our ambition, intent and focus. She deserved to go, that's for sure. And the lesson learned from this? Shut up and put up, at least for the short term, if it helps you get what you want. I just wish I could get this across to my kids. I could always set an example for them, I suppose, but short of a tongue amputation, I can't see that working...
Friday, 29 October 2010
The Apprentice - Bragging, Burning Bridges and Bad Behaviour....
It was a good one this week, with the gobby Melissa Cohen finally getting her comeuppance and hearing those famous dreaded words... "You're Fired!" Frankly, I thought she was so utterly horrible in last week's episode that I was hoping her team would fail so that I would have the pleasure of seeing her fired, but - somehow - she managed to grab victory and so my plans were thwarted for another seven days. Her performance this week, for a self-acclaimed pitching master, was dismal, finally leading to her departure from the show. So what did we learn about Melissa? That she liked to boast, and claim her prowess in an area that she obviously couldn't - and didn't - deliver on? Melissa learnt the hard way that she should have been able to back up her claims with action, rather than letting herself, and her team, down when it came to the crunch. One of the things to take away from this is the importance of setting expectations. If you say you can do something, whether you can or not, people will expect you to do it. If the expectation to achieve is unrealistic, you won't be meet your targets, and will disappoint those to whom you made the promise. If you set yourself, and your employer/ colleagues, realistic expectations, then you will always be able to deliver, and if you manage to exceed those targets, all the better! The thing about Melissa was that she bigged up her sales abilities so much, and had so much to prove, that when she fell flat on her face we all felt a little glow of happiness at her misfortune. Her braggishness wasn't helped any by her personality flaws, unfortunately. Volunteering to be the project manager - well, forcing her way into the position - once was enough for all of us, but she then tries to bulldoze her way into it for a second week. That girl certainly wanted to prove something, to herself as well as Lord Sugar. I would have thought that scraping through by the skin of her teeth in the bakery task would have allowed her to sit back and relax knowing she didn't have to stand in the firing line as PM again, but who knew she'd be such a glutton for punishment? Perhaps it was to gain more attention from Lord Sugar, perhaps to win back the respect of her team mates. Who knows? One thing's for sure, Melissa won't be missed by anyone in the Apprentice house, from what we've seen.
Nobody could fail to be surprised, and amused, by Melissa's parting shot in the boardroom, accusing Jamie and Stuart of ganging up on her. As she stormed out, both men followed her to say their goodbyes, only to be met with a refusal to shake hands and told that she had nothing to say to them. Sulky? Moi? It made her look BAD - childish, stroppy and petulant. If you were a potential employer, what on earth would you think after seeing THAT performance? I expect better from my 6-year old, let alone a grown "professional". Always beware of parting gestures, lest you burn your bridges, because you never know who might be watching. The same goes in other situations - watch what you say and never take it for granted that you haven't been observed. For example, people who turn up for an interview and are rude or short with the receptionist, only to discover later that they were dealing with the partner of the hiring manager, or have been watched whilst in the waiting area (I know of companies who routinely do this to observe behaviour). There are those who have made crass or inappropriate comments about a former boss or colleague, only to find that they are an acquaintance or family member of an interviewer. The list goes on. Loose lips and all that...
Finally, who couldn't help but cringe at Stuart "The Brand" Baggs' unintentional rudeness to the Baby Glow lady? The tactless, agressively questioning whippersnapper lost Synergy the chance to sell the innovative product, which eventually resulted in a huge win for Apollo, who won the bid and grossed £995,000k of orders for Liz, who pitched impeccably throughout. Baggsy didn't MEAN to be be insulting, but his unintentional ill behaviour contributed massively to the team's failure. We should all keep in mind that treating people badly without thinking of the consequences is a dangerous thing to do - who wants to be the one with foot in mouth disease all the time?!
I think that's all I have to "conversate" with you for now... I'm off to watch a re-run of "The Apprentice: You're Fired" and have another laugh at Ms Cohen's expense. I never thought gloating could be this much fun...
Nobody could fail to be surprised, and amused, by Melissa's parting shot in the boardroom, accusing Jamie and Stuart of ganging up on her. As she stormed out, both men followed her to say their goodbyes, only to be met with a refusal to shake hands and told that she had nothing to say to them. Sulky? Moi? It made her look BAD - childish, stroppy and petulant. If you were a potential employer, what on earth would you think after seeing THAT performance? I expect better from my 6-year old, let alone a grown "professional". Always beware of parting gestures, lest you burn your bridges, because you never know who might be watching. The same goes in other situations - watch what you say and never take it for granted that you haven't been observed. For example, people who turn up for an interview and are rude or short with the receptionist, only to discover later that they were dealing with the partner of the hiring manager, or have been watched whilst in the waiting area (I know of companies who routinely do this to observe behaviour). There are those who have made crass or inappropriate comments about a former boss or colleague, only to find that they are an acquaintance or family member of an interviewer. The list goes on. Loose lips and all that...
Finally, who couldn't help but cringe at Stuart "The Brand" Baggs' unintentional rudeness to the Baby Glow lady? The tactless, agressively questioning whippersnapper lost Synergy the chance to sell the innovative product, which eventually resulted in a huge win for Apollo, who won the bid and grossed £995,000k of orders for Liz, who pitched impeccably throughout. Baggsy didn't MEAN to be be insulting, but his unintentional ill behaviour contributed massively to the team's failure. We should all keep in mind that treating people badly without thinking of the consequences is a dangerous thing to do - who wants to be the one with foot in mouth disease all the time?!
I think that's all I have to "conversate" with you for now... I'm off to watch a re-run of "The Apprentice: You're Fired" and have another laugh at Ms Cohen's expense. I never thought gloating could be this much fun...
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The Apprentice and The Importance of Background Checking
The Apprentice is well underway with two episodes having come and gone, and Alan Sugar (now Lord Sugar rather than Suralan) has the uneviable task of trying to control the latest batch of self-proclaimed business geniuses.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Recruitment Roundup and Hard Labour....
There's been a few interesting snippets of recruitment news recently, so I thought I'd do a little round up this week, to make a change.
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Friday, 3 September 2010
Back to school and work - oh, the horror...
It's that time again - the beginning of autumn, the start of a new school year and the return to some semblance of a routine after the heady days of summer and holidays. Some greet this with relief, especially after six weeks stuck at home with bickering, bored children, whilst others feel depressed at going back to work after a fabulous week or two spent by the pool.
For working mums, the return to the office is a mixed blessing. Some are sad to say goodbye to the precious time spent with their children during annual leave and cope with the before school hissy fits and the after school hyperactivity, others are just pleased to get back to normality and the school run/ commute routine. Considering that most employers offer 20-25 days holiday leave a year (on top of Bank Holidays), most of us will have had to use some other form of childcare during the summer as well as taking time off. I am extremely lucky to have parents who force me to hand over the little darlings for two weeks at a time and whisk them off to their Welsh seaside retreat. Quality. For others, holiday clubs or out-of-school childcare is the only option - but with this costing between £75 and £105 per child per week, the summer holidays can be a large additional expense for working parents. And with thousands of children starting school today, for many mums it is the first chance they have to get back to work after starting a family... offering a whole new issue of seeking flexible or part-time work. Whilst plenty of mums are happy to work full time, there are plenty more who aren't quite ready to relinquish the hold of the school run and the teatime tantrums, and they now have to enter the fierce competition to gain a part-time job as well as deal with the equally fierce competition at the school gates.
At present, part-time workers are at an all-time high, fuelled by the economy and the current unemployment crisis, with people previously in full-time work now forced to work less hours just to remain in work. Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007, almost 100,000 mothers have been pushed back to work to make ends meet, and many of these will be part-time workers. With the cost of before and after school care and childminders so high in many areas, part-time work can be equally financially viable as full-time work once you factor these costs in. Many find jobs in shops or cafes, others as part-time administrators, secretaries or receptionists. There are always part-time jobs to be found working for local government - whether in an office or as a teaching assistant or secretary of a school. Councils offer flexibility and school jobs offer a great opportunity for part-time work which also fits in around the school holidays, thus eliminating the need for any additional childcare and the associated cost. However, the competition is huge as these jobs are highly sought after - not surprisingly - and councils now expect applicants to fill out long and sometimes difficult application forms, although some schools will accept applications direct. If you already work, don't forget that anyone with children under six is entitled to request flexible working. An increasing number of mums are turning to self employment, using existing professional expertise to go freelance, or starting up a small business.
Fitting work around children is no easy task. Ideal hours are between 9.30 and 2.30, to allow time to drop the kids off and then pick them up from school, and if you're lucky enough to land one of these jobs (as I have been), then it's plain sailing from here on in. Disregarding, of course, problems with little unanticipated matters such as inset days, sick children, family emergencies...
My kids haven't gone back to school yet. I have that pleasure yet to come, next week. Neither, as you can imagine, are desperate to return. The six year old has been ecstatic to spend all summer roaming the streets with his mates, cycling and skateboarding. He is brown from the sun as well as the dirt. The thirteen year old has been equally ecstatic to be able to lie in bed until midday and then loaf around the house playing computer games and watching documentaries. Tough luck to them, I say. If I have to go back to work whilst the Other Half gloats because he still has a few days off... Although, having said that, I'm sitting here in my comfortable office, blogging, whilst he's stuck at home refereeing between two fighting beasts, so who's having the last laugh?
(For a good range of council and school jobs, check out www.jobsgopublic.com for opportunities in your area.
For more information about working rights and entitlements, go to www.direct.gov.uk
For help and advice on working for yourself, see www.businesslink.gov.uk)
For working mums, the return to the office is a mixed blessing. Some are sad to say goodbye to the precious time spent with their children during annual leave and cope with the before school hissy fits and the after school hyperactivity, others are just pleased to get back to normality and the school run/ commute routine. Considering that most employers offer 20-25 days holiday leave a year (on top of Bank Holidays), most of us will have had to use some other form of childcare during the summer as well as taking time off. I am extremely lucky to have parents who force me to hand over the little darlings for two weeks at a time and whisk them off to their Welsh seaside retreat. Quality. For others, holiday clubs or out-of-school childcare is the only option - but with this costing between £75 and £105 per child per week, the summer holidays can be a large additional expense for working parents. And with thousands of children starting school today, for many mums it is the first chance they have to get back to work after starting a family... offering a whole new issue of seeking flexible or part-time work. Whilst plenty of mums are happy to work full time, there are plenty more who aren't quite ready to relinquish the hold of the school run and the teatime tantrums, and they now have to enter the fierce competition to gain a part-time job as well as deal with the equally fierce competition at the school gates.
At present, part-time workers are at an all-time high, fuelled by the economy and the current unemployment crisis, with people previously in full-time work now forced to work less hours just to remain in work. Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007, almost 100,000 mothers have been pushed back to work to make ends meet, and many of these will be part-time workers. With the cost of before and after school care and childminders so high in many areas, part-time work can be equally financially viable as full-time work once you factor these costs in. Many find jobs in shops or cafes, others as part-time administrators, secretaries or receptionists. There are always part-time jobs to be found working for local government - whether in an office or as a teaching assistant or secretary of a school. Councils offer flexibility and school jobs offer a great opportunity for part-time work which also fits in around the school holidays, thus eliminating the need for any additional childcare and the associated cost. However, the competition is huge as these jobs are highly sought after - not surprisingly - and councils now expect applicants to fill out long and sometimes difficult application forms, although some schools will accept applications direct. If you already work, don't forget that anyone with children under six is entitled to request flexible working. An increasing number of mums are turning to self employment, using existing professional expertise to go freelance, or starting up a small business.
Fitting work around children is no easy task. Ideal hours are between 9.30 and 2.30, to allow time to drop the kids off and then pick them up from school, and if you're lucky enough to land one of these jobs (as I have been), then it's plain sailing from here on in. Disregarding, of course, problems with little unanticipated matters such as inset days, sick children, family emergencies...
My kids haven't gone back to school yet. I have that pleasure yet to come, next week. Neither, as you can imagine, are desperate to return. The six year old has been ecstatic to spend all summer roaming the streets with his mates, cycling and skateboarding. He is brown from the sun as well as the dirt. The thirteen year old has been equally ecstatic to be able to lie in bed until midday and then loaf around the house playing computer games and watching documentaries. Tough luck to them, I say. If I have to go back to work whilst the Other Half gloats because he still has a few days off... Although, having said that, I'm sitting here in my comfortable office, blogging, whilst he's stuck at home refereeing between two fighting beasts, so who's having the last laugh?
(For a good range of council and school jobs, check out www.jobsgopublic.com for opportunities in your area.
For more information about working rights and entitlements, go to www.direct.gov.uk
For help and advice on working for yourself, see www.businesslink.gov.uk)
Monday, 16 August 2010
Poor performance in the workplace - let's share the blame...
Although the World Cup is well over, memories of England's crushing defeat were still fresh in the minds of the nation last week. Players were warned that they may be booed at the friendly against Hungary on Wednesday by disillusioned fans who felt that they had been let down by the squad's poor performance. Steven Gerrard, the current Captain, was even quoted saying that he would boo his own team if he was a fan - not very reassuring. Luckily, England went on to win the Hungary match 2-1, to an underfilled Wembley's delight. How humiliating it would have been to be publicly booed and jeered for failing to do a decent job, and how lucky for England that they finally upped their game and played some good football. Some people feel they got away lightly after embarrassing us all (yet again) at the world cup. The North Korean team, however, didn't. They were shamed during a six hour public enquiry after they failed to win any of their three World Cup group games. The whole squad was forced onto a stage at the People's Palace of Culture, and critised by the Sports Minister, Pak Myong-chol, in front of a 400-strong crowd. Their coach, Kim Jong-hun, was allegedly made to work as a builder and expelled from the Worker's Party of Korea. Some may say that England deserved no less...
But who is to blame for poor performance? The players? Coaches? Managers? In the past, the blame for England's underperformance has always been laid firmly at the feet of the manager. Yet, we have seen three managers come and go in quick succession - all of whom are rubbish? The one constant is the team. On the other hand, you could say that the team cannot do well without being properly managed, and they have been unlucky in having three incompetent managers in a row. North Korea's leaders kindly shared out the blame between the coach and the players, perhaps recognising the fact that a team effort means that everyone is responsible in some way for a successful - or unsuccessful - outcome. Fabio Cappello has apologised for England's rubbish playing in the World Cup, admitting that he knew they wouldn't be fit for the tournament before the games started, after a tiring summer schedule, at the pre-training camp. The fans had such high hopes for some victory, whilst the manager knew that this would be unlikely. And yet he is still managing the team, in essence being rewarded with the chance of running England for Euro 2012 as well as a big fat paypacket - this for a man who admits he underperforms. So who do we really blame? Fabio Cappello, for not making the training work for the team? The gruelling summer season in club football? The players for not making sure they were up to the task? Nick Powell of Sky News says that there are plenty of reasons that England's national squads are struggling to play a good game. He cites poor youth training, too many matches and over-emphasis on club football as just some of the problems facing English football. So, it seems we can blame the organisation just as much as the players and managers.
Off the pitch, and into the office. Poor performance in the workplace is just as much a problem, albeit one not witnessed and judged by the nation. Where does the blame lie for us normal people who don't achieve what we should? - and where does it stop short of being a problem and becoming a sacking offence... much like many of us felt that Cappello's was? Personnel Today report that employers lose £32m a year tolerated poor performance, with the most popular way of dealing with this being to "manage them out". Poor performance obviously needs to be dealt with, but how? Issues such as health reasons and workplace stress need to be look at as a reason for underperforming, rather than just incapability - or refusal - to carry out the tasks required. Failure to perform through negligence, laziness or insubordination counts as misconduct, and is a sacking offence. The problem with underperforming staff is the knock-on effect on everyone else - teams being affected and not delivering, other staff taking up the slack, managers who lay unreasonable demands on their juniors to hide their own substandard performance. Personnel Today emphasise the importance of nipping performance issues in the bud, and handling them in a way that works to solve them, rather than blame and dismiss the individual. Minor issues should be dealt with informally, giving the employee the chance to explain and agree necessary improvements. If formal proceedings commence, the employer should investigate underlying capability. More importantly, the employer should provide additional support, supervision and training where required, along with agreed timescales for improvement. Most people don't mean to, or want to, underachieve - or get sacked - after all. Unlike the Head of Hr for Cable & Wireless, Bernard Buckley, who fired 85% of his underperforming team within a week of starting, most employers are looking to retain and improve their staff rather than get rid of them!
Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about who to blame for poor performance, and start thinking about who can improve it. If employers, managers and staff can work together to boost performance (and morale), then this is surely the best way forward. Maybe Fabio Cappello can work with his squad to pull themselves together for the next Euros, and avoid the backlash of public opinion after the very disappointing performance seen in this World Cup.
That, or we need to bring back public flogging....
But who is to blame for poor performance? The players? Coaches? Managers? In the past, the blame for England's underperformance has always been laid firmly at the feet of the manager. Yet, we have seen three managers come and go in quick succession - all of whom are rubbish? The one constant is the team. On the other hand, you could say that the team cannot do well without being properly managed, and they have been unlucky in having three incompetent managers in a row. North Korea's leaders kindly shared out the blame between the coach and the players, perhaps recognising the fact that a team effort means that everyone is responsible in some way for a successful - or unsuccessful - outcome. Fabio Cappello has apologised for England's rubbish playing in the World Cup, admitting that he knew they wouldn't be fit for the tournament before the games started, after a tiring summer schedule, at the pre-training camp. The fans had such high hopes for some victory, whilst the manager knew that this would be unlikely. And yet he is still managing the team, in essence being rewarded with the chance of running England for Euro 2012 as well as a big fat paypacket - this for a man who admits he underperforms. So who do we really blame? Fabio Cappello, for not making the training work for the team? The gruelling summer season in club football? The players for not making sure they were up to the task? Nick Powell of Sky News says that there are plenty of reasons that England's national squads are struggling to play a good game. He cites poor youth training, too many matches and over-emphasis on club football as just some of the problems facing English football. So, it seems we can blame the organisation just as much as the players and managers.
Off the pitch, and into the office. Poor performance in the workplace is just as much a problem, albeit one not witnessed and judged by the nation. Where does the blame lie for us normal people who don't achieve what we should? - and where does it stop short of being a problem and becoming a sacking offence... much like many of us felt that Cappello's was? Personnel Today report that employers lose £32m a year tolerated poor performance, with the most popular way of dealing with this being to "manage them out". Poor performance obviously needs to be dealt with, but how? Issues such as health reasons and workplace stress need to be look at as a reason for underperforming, rather than just incapability - or refusal - to carry out the tasks required. Failure to perform through negligence, laziness or insubordination counts as misconduct, and is a sacking offence. The problem with underperforming staff is the knock-on effect on everyone else - teams being affected and not delivering, other staff taking up the slack, managers who lay unreasonable demands on their juniors to hide their own substandard performance. Personnel Today emphasise the importance of nipping performance issues in the bud, and handling them in a way that works to solve them, rather than blame and dismiss the individual. Minor issues should be dealt with informally, giving the employee the chance to explain and agree necessary improvements. If formal proceedings commence, the employer should investigate underlying capability. More importantly, the employer should provide additional support, supervision and training where required, along with agreed timescales for improvement. Most people don't mean to, or want to, underachieve - or get sacked - after all. Unlike the Head of Hr for Cable & Wireless, Bernard Buckley, who fired 85% of his underperforming team within a week of starting, most employers are looking to retain and improve their staff rather than get rid of them!
Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about who to blame for poor performance, and start thinking about who can improve it. If employers, managers and staff can work together to boost performance (and morale), then this is surely the best way forward. Maybe Fabio Cappello can work with his squad to pull themselves together for the next Euros, and avoid the backlash of public opinion after the very disappointing performance seen in this World Cup.
That, or we need to bring back public flogging....
Monday, 19 July 2010
Grow your own
I've been getting into growing my own veg recently. As much a shock to me as to everyone who knows me as an anti-gardener and the unwitting murderer of many a pot plant, I have started to enjoy the process. The lazy planting of seeds in rich compost-filled pots out in the sunshine - even more fun if the children help - and the loving watering in. The excitement of checking for fresh green shoots or buds of fruit every day, the gentle watering with my brand new watering can, and the joy at finding that first tomato, or potato shoot. So far, we have eaten our own lettuce and rocket, have eight teeny tomatoes waiting to ripen, and have leafy pots of radishes, peppers and potatoes waiting for the right time to be harvested. The only things not growing at the moment are the strawberries - but I have handed over all responsibility to my boys, so we may not get anything... It's such a rewarding experience to see all the different plants bloom and grow in different ways, after being nurtured and cared for. I am hoping to add some dwarf patio runner beans to my collection soon, as well as some more tomato plants.
And all this got me thinking about the need to nurture, and the different ways in which recruiters need to nurture their candidates. You wouldn't just chuck a tomato plant in some soil and leave it, hoping for rain to water it and keep it alive (well, you might do but it isn't advised!), so why do some recruiters just send someone's CV over to the client and hope for the best? Candidates need to be treated with love, like my radishes. There isn't a one-size-fits-all way to deal with candidates - everyone is different, with different needs, aspirations and desires. Just as tomatoes need lots of water, some tomato feed and a bamboo stick to keep them upright, some candidates need to have their confidence boosted, and guidance to the right sort of job. Potatoes can be chucked in a bag full of compost and as long as you water them regularly are usually OK, much as some candidates are happy with a quick chat to clarify a role and the client, and then for you to send their CV over. And this is before we even get to the interview stage, the most important part of the whole process for candidate, client and recruiter.
This is where the nurturing can really pay off. Any recruiter worth his or her salt knows the importance of prepping the candidate for the interview. Everyone has their own techniques as interviewer or interviewee, and all companies have their own way of conducting interviews. This is where the recruiter's expertise and knowledge comes in, where we can add value to the candidate's experience by talking them through what to expect, what type of interview it will be and so on. Like my poor peppers, whose leaves wilt in the hot sun and who need to be revived with regular drinks of water, candidates will also wither under the spotlight unless cared for beforehand. Candidates need to be fully prepared for the interview, and nurtured towards maximum confidence and best performance. While some people feel comfortable being interviewed and can cope under any circumstances, some need a lot more gentle handling and to know every last detail of the company/ interview styles and interviewer's personality. Unless we take the time to understand what the individual candidate needs, we cannot care for them in the right way.
And don't forget to carry on the nurturing after harvest time - whether successful or not! Keep in touch with successful candidates once they have started their new job. Keep in touch with unsuccessful candidates... offer them useful feedback and listen to their experience, so that next time things hopefully have a different outcome. Treat your candidates as you would treat your veg - with love - and they will reward you with the fruit of your toil. Nuture and care for them, and you will see the difference. Just as I do with my home growns.
Speaking of which, must dash - I forgot to water the tomatoes last night...
And all this got me thinking about the need to nurture, and the different ways in which recruiters need to nurture their candidates. You wouldn't just chuck a tomato plant in some soil and leave it, hoping for rain to water it and keep it alive (well, you might do but it isn't advised!), so why do some recruiters just send someone's CV over to the client and hope for the best? Candidates need to be treated with love, like my radishes. There isn't a one-size-fits-all way to deal with candidates - everyone is different, with different needs, aspirations and desires. Just as tomatoes need lots of water, some tomato feed and a bamboo stick to keep them upright, some candidates need to have their confidence boosted, and guidance to the right sort of job. Potatoes can be chucked in a bag full of compost and as long as you water them regularly are usually OK, much as some candidates are happy with a quick chat to clarify a role and the client, and then for you to send their CV over. And this is before we even get to the interview stage, the most important part of the whole process for candidate, client and recruiter.
This is where the nurturing can really pay off. Any recruiter worth his or her salt knows the importance of prepping the candidate for the interview. Everyone has their own techniques as interviewer or interviewee, and all companies have their own way of conducting interviews. This is where the recruiter's expertise and knowledge comes in, where we can add value to the candidate's experience by talking them through what to expect, what type of interview it will be and so on. Like my poor peppers, whose leaves wilt in the hot sun and who need to be revived with regular drinks of water, candidates will also wither under the spotlight unless cared for beforehand. Candidates need to be fully prepared for the interview, and nurtured towards maximum confidence and best performance. While some people feel comfortable being interviewed and can cope under any circumstances, some need a lot more gentle handling and to know every last detail of the company/ interview styles and interviewer's personality. Unless we take the time to understand what the individual candidate needs, we cannot care for them in the right way.
And don't forget to carry on the nurturing after harvest time - whether successful or not! Keep in touch with successful candidates once they have started their new job. Keep in touch with unsuccessful candidates... offer them useful feedback and listen to their experience, so that next time things hopefully have a different outcome. Treat your candidates as you would treat your veg - with love - and they will reward you with the fruit of your toil. Nuture and care for them, and you will see the difference. Just as I do with my home growns.
Speaking of which, must dash - I forgot to water the tomatoes last night...
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
New government, new unemployment, no New Deal?
With the new Cleggeron government, we all looked forward to renewed economic growth, efficient spending and an improvement in unemployment figures. Unluckily, since Dave and Nick decided to cut spending on everything worthwhile, it seems that even more people are at risk of losing their jobs. A leaked treasury report - publicised by The Guardian - revealed that 1.3m jobs could go by 2015, 120,000 of these from the public sector. Although the government say that experts predict a fall in unemployement and a rise in employment, many are dubious. The TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, warned of 80's reminiscent dole queues, widespread poverty and a widening north-south divide. There was a 7.9% drop in unemployment to 2.47m in the three months to April, and over the quarter an increase of 23,000 - less than expected. Jobseekers Allowance claims fell by 30,900 to under 1.5m, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. I don't know about you, but I find it confusing to be told that unemployment has risen whilst JSA claims have dropped - are people therefore not claiming even though they are out of work? Or are they, instead, claiming allowances such as Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance (preciously Incapacity Benefit) due to illness or disability? More worryingly, there was an increase of 85,000 to 772,000 people who have been out of work for over 12 months - the highest since April 1997. One million young people are unemployed and struggling to even start a job or career.
Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.
Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.
I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.
Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.
Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.
I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Time off to watch the Footie? Work and the World Cup
The World Cup is once again in the limelight... and it doesn't feel like four years since the last one! As employees all over England begin the countdown to the excitement, employers are feeling an all-too familar sense of dread, wondering just how the footie might impact their business. According to The Chartered Management Institute, the World Cup could cost businesses an uncool £1 billion, with SMEs losing £400m of this. Ouch. They also say that 54% of employers are worried that online coverage will distract their workers, 53% fear that chatting about the matches will stop people working, and 40% suspect that sickies will be pulled to allow their employees the time to watch the beautiful game. And that's before people start chatting to their friends on Facebook or Twitter about the footie, rather than catching up with their work. According to a survey by Blue Coat Systems, 54% of workers plan to watch the World Cup AT work - even though an equal number of IT managers reckon this should be banned.
The HR Dept (www.hrdept.co.uk) are warning employers to watch out for higher levels of absence, or hangovers caused from the previous evenings celebrations - or commiserations! Last year the UK economy lost £2.5 billion on 27 million bogus sickies... even with no World Cup to encourage them! Sky News reports that 1 in 7 people plan to watch all games this year, compared with under 13% for the 2006 competition, so it seems that some of the worries are justified. HR Dept suggest introducing some sort of flexibility to minimise disruption. Asda, for example, are offering a shift swap system whereby staff can negotiate their own shift exchanges with colleagues who don't want to watch a match (who on earth wouldn't want to watch?!) Call Centre Helper are urging employers to plan ahead. Suggestions include screening matches at work, offering flexible working, encouraging people to use annual leave and using watching matches at work as an incentive. Watching the game together can, apparently, bond team members... assuming they all support the same side!
Director Magazine (www.director.co.uk) debates whether EXTRA time off should be given to footie fans during this competition. But should we really be rewarded for preferring to watch the World Cup, rather than go to work? Professor Gary Cooper of Lancaster University Management School says YES. He claims that this will keep people focused, encourage autonomy and bonding, stimulate discussions and show employees that they are trusted to work hard in recompense, rather than be micro managed. Hilary Griffin, Professional Support Lawyer at Clyde & Co., says NO. She feels that it would be unfair on non-football fans as well as those who prefer other sporting events, and that employers would be better off encouraging holiday time is taken, giving time off later as a reward, implementing a policy on internet access (perhaps some viewing if work is made up later). What a spoilsport.
Employers also have to be careful about the risks of discrimination. Why should someone be allowed time off to watch an World Cup match, for example, but not Wimbledon? If people are using holiday time just to watch England play, then those who request leave to watch other teams must also be given preference. With the World Cup being such a huge deal for us here in the UK - as well as everywhere else - it seems mean not to allow people to join in wholeheartedly with the celebrations, but at the same time is a bit impractical. It's just a good thing that most of the games are in the evenings and weekends this time round, so the office workers are only at risk of being intensely hungover rather than skiving to actually watch the matches, I suppose. Unlucky for the evening workers, then - those who cannot take annual leave to watch will have to put a cunning plan in place to get their footie fix.
Personally, I'm only in it for the obligatory beer, but have been forced by my kids to display England flags from every orifice of my house and car. I may as well bother to watch some of the footie now, I suppose - nobody wants to be left out, work or no work.
The HR Dept (www.hrdept.co.uk) are warning employers to watch out for higher levels of absence, or hangovers caused from the previous evenings celebrations - or commiserations! Last year the UK economy lost £2.5 billion on 27 million bogus sickies... even with no World Cup to encourage them! Sky News reports that 1 in 7 people plan to watch all games this year, compared with under 13% for the 2006 competition, so it seems that some of the worries are justified. HR Dept suggest introducing some sort of flexibility to minimise disruption. Asda, for example, are offering a shift swap system whereby staff can negotiate their own shift exchanges with colleagues who don't want to watch a match (who on earth wouldn't want to watch?!) Call Centre Helper are urging employers to plan ahead. Suggestions include screening matches at work, offering flexible working, encouraging people to use annual leave and using watching matches at work as an incentive. Watching the game together can, apparently, bond team members... assuming they all support the same side!
Director Magazine (www.director.co.uk) debates whether EXTRA time off should be given to footie fans during this competition. But should we really be rewarded for preferring to watch the World Cup, rather than go to work? Professor Gary Cooper of Lancaster University Management School says YES. He claims that this will keep people focused, encourage autonomy and bonding, stimulate discussions and show employees that they are trusted to work hard in recompense, rather than be micro managed. Hilary Griffin, Professional Support Lawyer at Clyde & Co., says NO. She feels that it would be unfair on non-football fans as well as those who prefer other sporting events, and that employers would be better off encouraging holiday time is taken, giving time off later as a reward, implementing a policy on internet access (perhaps some viewing if work is made up later). What a spoilsport.
Employers also have to be careful about the risks of discrimination. Why should someone be allowed time off to watch an World Cup match, for example, but not Wimbledon? If people are using holiday time just to watch England play, then those who request leave to watch other teams must also be given preference. With the World Cup being such a huge deal for us here in the UK - as well as everywhere else - it seems mean not to allow people to join in wholeheartedly with the celebrations, but at the same time is a bit impractical. It's just a good thing that most of the games are in the evenings and weekends this time round, so the office workers are only at risk of being intensely hungover rather than skiving to actually watch the matches, I suppose. Unlucky for the evening workers, then - those who cannot take annual leave to watch will have to put a cunning plan in place to get their footie fix.
Personally, I'm only in it for the obligatory beer, but have been forced by my kids to display England flags from every orifice of my house and car. I may as well bother to watch some of the footie now, I suppose - nobody wants to be left out, work or no work.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Strike me down, BA's off again...
British Airways is in the news - again - with the announcement of yet more strikes to come... and this time, targeted at disrupting the Bank Holiday weekend. As if the BH isn't going to be bad enough what with the forecast of rain and predicted motorway congestion, now anyone who booked BA flights to whisk them off to sunnier climes has also lucked out. BA last announced massive strike plans back in December, to cover the Christmas period, causing massive panic among management and customers alike. The staff were set to strike over pay freezes, and working conditions. Airline bosses believed that the measures were unavoidable and essential to keep the business afloat. Having reported losses in early 2009 of £401 million, they felt that, seeing as most of their staff already earned almost twice as much as those working for Virgin, it made sense to keep pay as it was. The cabin crew disagreed, and 13,500 of them agreed to support the strike. Thankfully for the estimated one million passengers who may have found themselves living in an airport for the festive period, a high court injunction banned the strike - describing it as illegal - and business went on as normal. So people slowly began to forget, and book their BA flights once more. Until now.
Yes, the cabin crews have decided to implement not one but two strikes over the coming weekend, citing the removal of travel perks (discounted tickets) for those staff who staged a walk out back in March. They feel that this is punishment for participating in industrial action. Heaven forbid that anyone should be punished for causing discruption to flight schedules, financial loss for their employer, misery and stress for passengers and complications for their fellow workers. Anyway, that's what it's all about this time. British Airways had its injunction to block industrial action turned down last week, and refused an offer by Unite to call off the strike if perks were reinstated. Although they are planning further court action as I write, the situation for travellers this weekend seems bleaker than ever, with reduced, delayed and cancelled flights.
There is an ominous lack of public support for the strikes. BA are well known for their higher than industry average salaries, and complaining about them just seems, well, ungrateful perhaps? Public sector strikes, on the other hand, are able to glean more public support, and are generally accepted as more necessary. The strikes of public service staff back in July 2008 saw thousands of government workers backing up complaints of inadequate payrises. In March this year, they were awarded an extra 0.3% rise, making an overall 2.75% rise at all points, backdated to April 2008. People such as cleaners, librarians, teaching assistants, refuse collectors and social workers are generally seen as more "worthy" of a higher wage, possibly because they are paid less than those in the private sector. If British Airways are already paying top whack - senior cabin staff earn up to £56k a year, hardly peanuts - then if they haven't got the budget to pay more, what's next?
In any strike action, whether by public service or BA workers, who loses out most? The British public, that's who. But we can overlook not having our bins emptied for a few weeks, or the schools shutting for a day or two (which is a huge source of joy to our children anyway). We can't overlook having paid good money for a premium travel service and then being messed about, or having our holiday ruined by airline staff who are, in many people's opinions, taking the mickey. EasyJet are having a field day with their new ad - "Why trust BA? EasyJet has over 500,000 ways to help!" They, at least, are overjoyed with the strike news. As for everyone else, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed. And vow never to book a flight with BA ever again.
I'm just glad I'd already decided to spend the Bank Holiday enjoying the glorious UK wind and rain, as I sit stuck in endless traffic listening to screaming kids in the backseat. Bliss.
Yes, the cabin crews have decided to implement not one but two strikes over the coming weekend, citing the removal of travel perks (discounted tickets) for those staff who staged a walk out back in March. They feel that this is punishment for participating in industrial action. Heaven forbid that anyone should be punished for causing discruption to flight schedules, financial loss for their employer, misery and stress for passengers and complications for their fellow workers. Anyway, that's what it's all about this time. British Airways had its injunction to block industrial action turned down last week, and refused an offer by Unite to call off the strike if perks were reinstated. Although they are planning further court action as I write, the situation for travellers this weekend seems bleaker than ever, with reduced, delayed and cancelled flights.
There is an ominous lack of public support for the strikes. BA are well known for their higher than industry average salaries, and complaining about them just seems, well, ungrateful perhaps? Public sector strikes, on the other hand, are able to glean more public support, and are generally accepted as more necessary. The strikes of public service staff back in July 2008 saw thousands of government workers backing up complaints of inadequate payrises. In March this year, they were awarded an extra 0.3% rise, making an overall 2.75% rise at all points, backdated to April 2008. People such as cleaners, librarians, teaching assistants, refuse collectors and social workers are generally seen as more "worthy" of a higher wage, possibly because they are paid less than those in the private sector. If British Airways are already paying top whack - senior cabin staff earn up to £56k a year, hardly peanuts - then if they haven't got the budget to pay more, what's next?
In any strike action, whether by public service or BA workers, who loses out most? The British public, that's who. But we can overlook not having our bins emptied for a few weeks, or the schools shutting for a day or two (which is a huge source of joy to our children anyway). We can't overlook having paid good money for a premium travel service and then being messed about, or having our holiday ruined by airline staff who are, in many people's opinions, taking the mickey. EasyJet are having a field day with their new ad - "Why trust BA? EasyJet has over 500,000 ways to help!" They, at least, are overjoyed with the strike news. As for everyone else, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed. And vow never to book a flight with BA ever again.
I'm just glad I'd already decided to spend the Bank Holiday enjoying the glorious UK wind and rain, as I sit stuck in endless traffic listening to screaming kids in the backseat. Bliss.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Jobs for the Girls?
I haven't been to the Jobcentre in years, but last time I was there was looking for admin/clerical work and was advised on a few relevant vacancies by staff. In Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire last week, women looking for these types of jobs were also advised by Jobcentre staff - but rather than office work, were handed information about sex lines! The company recruiting, Faceclick, are offering up to £700 a week if you strip off, plonk your bits in front of a webcam and have sexually explicit chats with punters. Naturally, it all came as a bit of a shock to the jobseekers, especially with words such as "fetish", "Just 18 legal", and "role play" being mentioned in the adverts. Sky News HD readers leapt into the comments section, with predictable results - shock and horror from most women, smut from the men, and lots of blaming the government for the downfall in society due to advertising sex. Blah blah blah. There were one or two women boasting that they had similar jobs, and were the best they'd ever had, and a few more "liberated" people who couldn't see the harm in advertising adult jobs in the Jobcentre. There was also some concern about whether benefits would be affected if, say, someone was ungrateful enough to turn down such an opportunity. Prior to 2003, the Jobcentre wouldn't allow recruiters to advertise work within the sex industry. However, Ann Summers sucessfully took their case to court, and set a precedent for advertising such roles. The general consensus, though, is that selling lacy knickers and a few sex toys is worlds apart from working in the porn industry, and the DWP is taking advice about withdrawing their Faceclick adverts after pressure from Mediawatch- UK.
It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.
Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.
The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...
It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.
Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.
The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Snog Marry Avoid
One day to go until the General Election, and you'd think that everyone has decided who they are going to vote for. It ain't necessarily so. The good old swing voters are still undecided, and last minute changes of mind (and heart) are possible over the next 34 hours. And it's women - again - who make up the majority of the swing voters, and who the three main parties are desperate to convince before time runs out.
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
Monday, 26 April 2010
I want my money back...
An article published in The Times (Online) caught my interest this morning. James, who gave up his home to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement, found out a year later that the daughter he had lavished with love - and maintenance, school fees etc - for seventeen years was not his child. He suspected and accused his wife of having an affair three years into the marriage, which she denied, and at the end of the year their daughter was born. By the time she was ten or eleven, James says that he had doubts about her paternity - but he didn't do anything about it. His wife and he were seperated, although not divorced, by this time. A few years later, he felt he finally had to find out for sure, and had the test done without telling his daughter first. Devastated, and feeling betrayed, James has informed his daughter of the result - and he is taking his wife to court to get back his share in the family home, which he chose to relinquish as part of the divorce settlement. So, effectively, he wants a refund on his daughter, as she is not his and he was been tricked into believing she was (although his ex-wife claims she had no idea he wasn't the father either). One has to wonder if it will be worth his while - not only has he deeply hurt his daughter, he also has a court case costing an estimated £250,000 looming over him - but he claims it's the principle of the matter.
This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.
James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.
For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.
This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.
James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.
For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Has social media killed the cultural star?
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read an article by the BBC, reporting that Shakespeare's romantic tragedy Romeo and Juliet is to be told across Twitter. The joint venture between Channel 4 and the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company, philistines) will see "Such Tweet Sorrow" - ah, the witticism - being tweeted across the social network in 140-character chunks, due to go live on 12th April. Romeo and Juliet? On Twitter? Who the heck thought that up? Apparently Channel 4 have vowed to double their arts coverage budget to $6m, so maybe they're just trying to save the advertising costs. Will it really work, though? Who is going to see this insane "broadcast" and think, 'Oooh, Shakespeare is really great after all, innit?' I get it, I really do. Channel 4 getting down with the kids, making Romeo and Juliet a funky, real love story, in small doses so that the over-hyped, information overdosed ADHD ridden teenagers can process it, making Shakespeare cool. Of course, then they will be making sure they watch Channel 4 arts programmes, asking their parents for tickets to the RSC's next production of Hamlet, and begging their teachers to let them read a Shakespeare play a week for their GCSE English Literature. I thought all this stuff had been done before. Shorter versions of Shakespeare published for kids, along with stage performances of the same. Baz Lurhman made R&J sexy for a while in the 90's, thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes as the star-cross'd lovers in his abridged, camp and West Side Story-esque film. How quickly we forget. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to dumb down Shakespeare even more, that's all. Will it work? Who knows. Can social networking promote the arts, or will using it in this way serve only to simplify literature, music and art, alienate those amongst us who enjoy these pursuits, and give the kids something else to sneer at?
It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.
In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.
I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.
But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.
It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.
In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.
I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.
But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.
Monday, 22 March 2010
How Your Employee's Twitter Posts Can Ruin Your Business.
The other day I received an invitation to partake of dowloading a MessageLabs whitepaper, the email titled as above, promising to uncover the business issues associated with web (mis) use in the workplace". Lucky me, it was part of an IT Compliance Bulletin and also included the tempting "Free 10-page Guide to Achieving ISO 27001 Certification", "Dangerous Things You Didn't Know About Outbound Emails" (and I don't think they just mean the ones you send to ex-boyfriends after a few glasses of wine and get yourself in a 'situation') and - my personal favourite - "A Masterclass In Threat Detection And Prevention!". I haven't read any of them yet. In fact, I've only just downloaded the first one, "Is Social Networking Really Bad For Business?". So, anyway, can employee's Twitter posts really ruin your business? The same, or even more so than, say, posting semi-clad photos of themselves on Facebook, or slagging you off down the pub to all and sundry, or taking out an advert in The Times to let middle England read all about it? Are they even talking about the posts in a content way, or do they mean the time spent posting rather than working? I'd rather the more scandalous and salacious reasons, such as posting photos of you in bed with the MD, for example. I am prepared to be disappointed though. So how DOES the evil Twitter go about destroying businesses and lives? The mind boggles. But let it boggle no more, dear reader - because I am happy to share with you the secrets of the MessageLabs report. It's probably stuff we all know anyway. We can read through it together. Let's start on Page 1, shall we?
It all seems to stem from the changed nature of internet use in the workplace, put in motion by those pesky young Generation Y-ers. Rather than just using t'interweb for emails, research and buying shoes in the Brand Alley sale in your lunch hour, you can now have a chat with your mates, upload photos from your mobile phone, share a video or song, and update your relationship status. All in the space it takes your colleague to make a cup of tea ready and bring in the digestives. With Facebook growing 228% in the 12 months since Feb 2008, and Twitter a massive 1382%, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that there must be a hell of a lot of people using these social networking sites whilst on the clock. Next up is the blending of work and personal life, with people expecting to be able to access the internet for personal use whilst at work, for various reasons. Gambling, checking personal emails (Hotmail, Yahoo! etc), downloading music and so on. Over two thirds of online porn traffic occurs during office hours, according to http://www.getsafeonline.org/. And of course, Tweeting and sheep throwing are also very popular. Hearteningly, some of us are good little boys and girls and use the net to download work relevant software, and are harnessing social networking sites for the good - to build contacts for networking, lead generation and to keep up with industry developments. We are known as "committed employees", don't you know. Blogs and forums are now used as important business tools, especially for marketing or recruitment led companies.
So what's the problem? Well, apparently there are web risks to business. Duh, like we didn't already know that. Everyone knows that. So are MessageLabs telling us anything new? The first consideration is of direct, measurable costs. Reduced productivity and wasted bandwidth are cited as examples of this. Security is an issue - malicious websites, accidental loss of data and new threats from cybercriminals. Legal compliance is also a problem, as are employee/HR issues and unauthorised software downloads. All these can lead to businesses being sued, fined and generally getting into lots of trouble. Right down at the bottom of the pile is brand and reputation risk. Personally, I think that this last one is the largest issue for any SME, who rely more heavily on word of mouth than larger companies who can exercise damage control in most cases should their reputation be threatened. Most companies already have a AUP - Acceptable Use Policy - in place to minimise these risks. If yours hasn't, then as an owner/boss, get one - as an employee, enjoy surfing while you can!
Interesting stuff, if not exactly groundbreaking. Yes, it's obvious we shouldn't post confidential documents or information pertaining to work on Facebook. Or look at porn, or Tweet and blog when were are pretending to be typing up the minutes of last week's AGM. But whilst the report concentrates the obviously quantifiable risks to business, especially security (not surprisingly, being produced by MessageLabs, Symantec Hosted Services TM) it doesn't mention any of the sorts of things that people do on social networking sites that could affect the reputation/brand adversely.
Things like writing on your friend's wall about how much you hate your job and boss, using four letter words exclusively. Things like slagging off a client and naming them. Things like posting dirty pictures of yourself on your Facebook page and inviting professional contacts to look. Maybe stuff like generally being foul mouthed and chavvy when you post on Twitter, or updating your Facebook status every time you get drunk, dumped, or laid. In themselves, all these things could be seen as pretty harmless (except the dirty pics one... unless you know that your contacts will be happy to see you in a PVC nurse's uniform and won't mention it to your boss). Unfortunately, all these things are probably an extremely stupid idea if you have lots of colleagues following you on Twitter or as Facebook friends, and a bloody ridiculous idea if you actually have your boss/manager/HR director etc as a contact able to access everything you write or upload.
You know what? I don't think your employee's Twitter posts CAN ruin your business. If you run the company properly, and treat people well, they won't need to write nasty things about you. If they are fulfilled and interested in their jobs, they won't have to spend all day Tweeting for something to do. And, at the end of the day, you're responsible for the hiring (even if indirectly) of your staff... so if they end up twisting the internet to use it for pure evil, then you need to ask yourself how they ever got through the first stage interview.
Mind you, when I got my job I hadn't even heard of Twitter, so my poor boss never stood a chance...
For more free whitepapers on web security and the like, see www.messagelabs.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
