According to a report in Contractor UK, pay rises are 'only a matter of time' for IT workers. Apparently, IT directors are concerned about retaining key technical staff, and this could lead to IT departments having to increase pay in 2011. Obviously, they want to hang onto key techies before they're poached by higher-paying competitors, and this is driving pay increases. Retention is a concerning issue for as many as 85% of IT directors - which is good news for contractors who can use this to drive up their daily rate. Although, according to CW Jobs and JobsAdwatch, there may be a 'slowdown in overall IT recruitment activity in the current year." However, software houses and outsourcing consultants used the month of December to add contractors to their teams, and this may be set to grow this year.
Not such good news for council workers, though - they are feeling 'betrayed' over wage freezes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, George Osborne promised that public servants on £21,000 or below would get an extra £250 a year from this April. Now, more than one million workers have been told that, in fact, they won't be receiving this increase. Employers (local authorities etc) say that a £6.5 billion funding gap is to blame, and the Treasury claims that they only meant those directly employed by the government to benefit. The unions have stepped in, with Brian Sutton of GMB saying that Mr Osborne "reneged on a promise to low paid workers." This freeze will hit home helps, social workers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, to name but a few. Sutton added that local government could have kept this promise. He went on to claim that, with inflation taken into account, this freeze adds up to a paycut for those on low wages, as 70% of council workers earn under £21,000.
Next up to fight for fairer wages are 154,000 agricultural workers across England and Wales. The union Unite told Defra that these workers deserve a decent wage to counter inflation, as well as a public holiday to commemorate Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April. Many farmers and farm workers are struggling to manage on less than the average weekly wage, due to the rising cost of fuel, food and inflation, with 1 in 4 rural families living below the poverty line. Unite say that farming needs to be seen as a professional occupation, yet farmers are struggling to recruit skilled workers. Negotiations begin in June.
So, for those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate a pay rise - what do we do if we reckon we're worth it?
Well, don't be nice to your boss - a study published last year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found this definitely doesn't get you a payrise! Those Risk-averse employees, who try to please their employers, are more likely to compromise and cave into management wishes when it comes to negotiation time. Those who never discuss salary at appraisals or interviews hardly ever get a rise. More aggressive employees earn an average of $5000 (£3200) more a year - which works out at an extra $600k (£385k) more over 40 years, based on an annual increase of under 5%. Good news for us girls - women were found to be just as competitive as men, despite earlier indications to the contrary. Those who prepare for the negotiations - who learned about their market value, did their homework on the organisation, and inquired about previous offers - are able to use more competitive strategies and get the rise they want. This was an American report, however, and whether we more modest Brits will ever be able to throw off our self deprecating modesty and demand more money is yet to be seen.
Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my negotiation skills. Alternatively, I could always just get on with the work I'm already being paid for...
Friday, 25 February 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
Sexism and Sacking - when's a joke just a joke?
There's been such a lot written about the Andy Gray and Richard Keys sexism debacle, so I won't go into the details much. For anyone who has been living on Mars for the past couple of weeks, the scallywags got into a lot of trouble when they made disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee during a private conversation after a game at Sky Sports. It all kicked off from that point, leading to Gray's dismissal and Keys' resignation.
There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?
Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?
So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?
So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.
But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?
There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?
Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?
So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?
So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.
But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?
Friday, 28 January 2011
Bogus bonuses?
It's banker bonus season again, and the press is full of articles, reports and general grumbles about the whole thing. As a nation, we seem to have a huge problem with the bonuses, not in small part due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, have had to bail out some of the banks after the hideous financial crash in 2008. A survey done last year showed that 2,800 bankers received over £1 million as bonuses, and Stephen Hester (RBS Chief Executive) is in line for £2.5 million. In total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.
So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.
Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.
At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.
So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!
As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...
So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.
Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.
At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.
So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!
As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Older... and wiser?
Yesterday's news reported the removal of the Default Retirement Age (DRA), which will be phased out between April and October this year. No longer will employers be able to force retirement at the age of 65, which is good news for older workers and the removal of what is an unacceptable, ageist practice.
Age has been in the news quite a lot recently, thanks to Miriam O'Reilly. The former presenter of Countryfile, she has just won her case of ageism against the BBC after 14 months of wrangling. Claiming she was dropped from the show in favour of younger presenters, although 68-year-old John Craven was kept on, O'Reilly presented her case for ageism and sex discrimination, the latter of which was not upheld. Prior to being removed from Countryfile after eight years as a presenter, she was asked whether it was time for botox and advised to beware of wrinkles. The BBC - already accused of ageist practices after replacing Arlene Phillips (Strictly Come Dancing) and Moira Stewart with younger models - have apologised, and said they would like to work with the freelance broadcaster in the future. They will also be paying out an undisclosed sum as compensation. Whilst O'Reilly's case has been successful, for many workers across the UK, ageism is still a cause for concern.
A report last year by the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) indicates that hundreds of thousands of mature workers face ageist attitudes from recruiters. More older people are now seeking work due to changes in the benefits system - as Incapacity Benefit is becoming Employment Support Allowance - and an estimated 750,000 more mature workers will be re-entering the job market over the next 3 years.
Although Age Discrimination laws came into effect in October 2006, and businesses were forced to review their recruitment processes, prospective candidates still feel they are discriminated against because of their age. A survey of over 50's showed that 4% felt they had been refused a job due to their age. Interestingly, even more than this - 5% - of 16-24 year olds felt that THEY had been refused a job for being too young. It seems that ageism is out there, for the young as well as the old. Young people face discrimination in work too - they often feel they aren't taken seriously and are passed over for someone more mature. It cuts both ways, it seems.
Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.
I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...
Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.
I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
You're Hired! And that's Snow joke...
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!
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!
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...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
