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....
Monday, 16 August 2010
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
