Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Social welfare office bans pyjamas for interviews

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    As I posted in the other thread...

    While only retards wear pajamas outdoors, I think it's going a bit too far banning people wearing them in a social welfare office.

    If I complain about people wearing tracksuits will they be banned too?


  • #33
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Their bed pyjamas are unacceptable but their "going out" pyjamas are fine


  • #34
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Mannys the year since Ive been in a dole office thank god, but I don't remember any of those f**kers behind the counter making much of an effort on the dress code front either.

    Actually i don't remember them making much of an effort on any front tbh


  • #35
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    bijapos wrote: »
    We got a number of people in for interview for the warehouse jobs and it was obvious that they were only there to get us to tick a form saying they attempted to apply for a job.

    Some came dressed in PJs, some swore at the interview, a few started to text, one said he had to make a phone call and proceeded to order gear for the weekend in front of us. It was the Spud in Trainspotting effect, show some effort to get the job, but not enough so as you might actually get it. Fair enough the jobs were filled within the couple of days but some of them their attitude was so obviously offputting to make sure that they didn't get the job.

    I was on the dole myself for a while 3 years ago and some of the people I met are professional SW leeches, the vast majority are trying their best to get a job. Its the leeches who seriously couldnt be bothered their arses trying to get work that this is aimed at and I think its fair enough.

    Its these sort of unemployable wretches that should be put to the streets cleaning and making the country look good. It prob has to be accepted that they don't want to work in the real economy. They shouldn't be just let lie about in their PJ's collecting dole.

    I agree with banning PJ's at these offices. If they turned up in PJ's it should be grounds to cut them off as they are not deemed looking for work when they turn up looking like that.


  • #36
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    woodoo wrote: »
    Its these sort of unemployable wretches that should be put to the streets cleaning and making the country look good. It prob has to be accepted that they don't want to work in the real economy. They shouldn't be just let lie about in their PJ's collecting dole.

    I agree with banning PJ's at these offices. If they turned up in PJ's it should be grounds to cut them off as they are not deemed looking for work when they turn up looking like that.

    Okay, let's ban all clothing except a shirt, tie, trousers and shoes for men in welfare offices as obviously if they're not wearing them then they're obviously not looking for work.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    woodoo wrote: »
    Its these sort of unemployable wretches that should be put to the streets cleaning and making the country look good. It prob has to be accepted that they don't want to work in the real economy. They shouldn't be just let lie about in their PJ's collecting dole.

    I agree with banning PJ's at these offices. If they turned up in PJ's it should be grounds to cut them off as they are not deemed looking for work when they turn up looking like that.

    Problem being they would all have "accidents" at work and have claims in within the week..hard to understand the rational behind somebody that is to lazy to even get dressed in the mornings..good on the dole office telling them to grow up.


  • #38
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Okay, let's ban all clothing except a shirt, tie, trousers and shoes for men in welfare offices as obviously if they're not wearing them then they're obviously not looking for work.

    This is a load of hyperbole and you know it, whats the big deal in expecting people to get dressed to go to the social office to have an auld chat about how they have been looking for work etc.

    Its a pisstake turning up in pyjamas and you know it.


  • #39
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Inspectors do home visits and you can wear whatever you want at home

    No kidding! People are still free to wear what they want in their own homes.:eek: I bet it's only a matter of time before some or other zealous busybodies try to correct that.:D
    mikemac1 wrote: »
    But go to their offices and it's their rules, they can enforce if they want

    Actually, the offices are not theirs. They belong to the people and those officials are public servants, although one has to suspect that at times they forget this fact.:rolleyes: Rules must be founded in legislation or regulations duly issued on the basis of legislation, and that means any regulations or guidelines requiring observance of a particular dress code should be issued centrally, e.g. by ministerial order. It is completely unacceptable for the staff of one office to set rules or guidelines arbitrarily and based only on a whim or complaints by querulants.

    One of the fundamental rights enshrined in several international conventions to which Ireland is a voluntary party is the right to privacy, and this includes the way one dresses.:cool:

    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Schools have done this before, it's not new

    And, unfortunately, it has not been challenged, either - yet! The fact that schools can act in such an arbitrary manner - and racistically and Islamophobically in some instances - merely further underlines the importance of a fundamental overhaul of the Irish education system.:)


  • #40
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    No kidding! People are still free to wear what they want in their own homes.:eek: I bet it's only a matter of time before some or other zealous busybodies try to correct that.:D



    Actually, the offices are not theirs. They belong to the people and those officials are public servants, although one has to suspect that at times they forget this fact.:rolleyes: Rules must be founded in legislation or regulations duly issued on the basis of legislation, and that means any regulations or guidelines requiring observance of a particular dress code should be issued centrally, e.g. by ministerial order. It is completely unacceptable for the staff of one office to set rules or guidelines arbitrarily and based only on a whim or complaints by querulants.

    One of the fundamental rights enshrined in several international conventions to which Ireland is a voluntary party is the right to privacy, and this includes the way one dresses.:cool:




    And, unfortunately, it has not been challenged, either - yet! The fact that schools can act in such an arbitrary manner - and racistically and Islamophobically in some instances - merely further underlines the importance of a fundamental overhaul of the Irish education system.:)


    What a load of BOLLOX.


  • #41
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    What a load of BOLLOX.

    She's right in saying they can't enforce it without going through the proper procedures, which would enforce it nationwide.

    The staff in the office simply do not have the power to make changes to the operation of a public sector at a whim.

    I'm not saying that's what the staff are doing, they're simply posting a warning, but it is close to the borderline and there could be a case there for it to be taken down.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    This is a load of hyperbole and you know it, whats the big deal in expecting people to get dressed to go to the social office to have an auld chat about how they have been looking for work etc.

    Its a pisstake turning up in pyjamas and you know it.

    I think turning up in a football jersey is taking the piss.
    I think turning up in sandals is taking the piss.
    I think turning up in a short skirt is taking the piss.
    I think turning up wearing too much make up is taking the piss.
    I think turning up wearing fake tan is taking the piss.
    I think turning up wearing designer labels is taking the piss.

    Where is the line drawn? People who wear pajamas outside are gob****es but they're not harming anyone.


  • #43
    Milky Moo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Milky Moo


    My god I can not believe people are defending the fact people technically have the right to wear pyjamas to the dole office.

    Technically I have the right to fart outrageously on the bus, but I don't do it because it just isn't socially acceptable, it would make me look like an animal and it would be highly unpleasant for those in my vicinity.

    Turning up to the dole office in your pyjamas is the height of laziness


  • #44
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Milky Moo wrote: »
    Technically I have the right to fart outrageous on the bus, but I don't do it because it just isn't socially acceptable, it would make me look like an animal and it would be highly unpleasant for those in my vicinity.

    Do you think you should be advised to get off the bus if you fart?

    And how does wearing a pajamas in public offend your senses or make you uncomfortable?


  • #45
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    What a load of BOLLOX.

    What an insightful reply. Quite up to your highest standards of legal analysis, I see. :pac::pac::pac::pac:


  • #46
    Fear Uladh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭Fear Uladh


    Milky Moo wrote: »
    My god I can not believe people are defending the fact people technically have the right to wear pyjamas to the dole office.

    Technically I have the right to fart outrageous on the bus, but I don't do it because it just isn't socially acceptable, it would make me look like an animal and it would be highly unpleasant for those in my vicinity.

    Turning up to the dole office in your pyjamas is the height of laziness

    Some of these people don't care how they are perceived by others, which is the crux of the problem.


  • #47
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Milky Moo wrote: »
    Turning up to the dole office in your pyjamas is the height of laziness

    They could be unemployed mattress testers in uniform.


  • #48
    Standard Toaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,291 ✭✭✭✭Standard Toaster


    The notice in question.


  • #49
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    What an insightful reply. Quite up to your highest standards of legal analysis, I see. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    In fairness, you didn't back up anything you said despite making wild assumptions.


  • #50
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    What an insightful reply. Quite up to your highest standards of legal analysis, I see. :pac::pac::pac::pac:


    Its after hours not the legal forum, doesnt change the fact that your post was a load of dribble.


  • #51
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    giant_midget wrote: »
    Only in Ireland would a social welfare office need to put a sign like this up, Just goes to show the level of scummers that they have to deal with. Does not look well that these "people" are looking for work.

    On a personal level i hate the PJ brigade...That they swan around the streets dressed like this...



    "A social welfare office in Dublin has erected a sign on its window warning claimants that pyjamas are not appropriate clothing to wear for those attending for interview.

    Staff at the Damastown social welfare office said this type of attire will no longer be tolerated.

    It is believed the decision was made to ban pyjamas after a number of complaints were made from customers.


    Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/social-welfare-office-bans-pyjamas-for-interviews-537219.html#ixzz1kSafmubU"

    Ha brilliant, hopefully this will filter through to banning them from every public place in the Country, imagine going to an interview in your pyjama's, really shows the level of some people.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Milky Moo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Milky Moo


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Do you think you should be advised to get off the bus if you fart?

    And how does wearing a pajamas in public offend your senses or make you uncomfortable?

    There is a difference between doing things consciously and unconsciously, how hard is it to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner, to dress in a pair of jeans and hoodie opposed to bed clothes?

    It annoys me that their is a sub section of our great little nation that thinks so little of any service that they feel it is ok to wake up and walk out of their house without dressing.

    It is about respect, respect for yourself and others.


  • #53
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    I stand to be corrected, but the interviews are not held outdoors. The policy is a correct one, when you dress for an interview it should be to impress.

    I don't think the folk at the social welfare office expect to be too impressed, especially considering a lot of people going there won't have the money for decent clothes. While I think wearing pyjamas out of the house is a bit silly, I don't see the problem in going to the social welfare office in fairly casual clothes.
    There are better ways to impress someone than wearing certain clothes anyway.
    giant_midget wrote: »
    It's not really an over the top reaction to be honest. If the SW offices felt the need to put up signs so these idiots would not present themselves in PJ's then it is a problem...Goes to show the type of person you are if you turn up in PJ's for a meeting with SW, Says a lot about your lifestyle and you come across as lazy and stupid.

    I agree that the social welfare office are entitled to ask people not to wear pyjamas as people are conditioned to seeing them worn only indoors in casual situations, but personally I'd still consider people wearing pyjamas to be people and not necessarily scumbags or sub-humans. Lazy people, sure, but still people.
    Dovies wrote: »
    Eh no!! Unless you are going to the gym or sports training they aren't!!

    Why?
    I honestly don't understand why people get so bothered about seeing people wearing tracksuits. I don't wear them myself (except for tracksuit pants when I'm running) but I've no problem with other people wearing them. The same way I don't mind sitting on the train with 100 men wearing near-identical suits and coats, even though I don't usually wear a suit myself.

    I also remember tracksuits being quite common in the 90s, I don't see why they're now such terrible things.

    Also, if you're arguing that they're not being used for the purpose they were designed for, then I'd better take off my jeans as I'm not doing any manual labour.


  • #54
    Antomus Prime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭Antomus Prime


    minidazzler wrote: »
    That's discrimination, and while I don't think they should wear PJ's, they should have the right to.

    I disagree, nobody should have the right to wear pj's in a public building, it's lazy, unprofessional, ignorant and it really shows someone attitude if they wont even bother their hole to get out of their bed clothes and get dressed in the morning!
    Seachmall wrote: »
    Well that's bullshit.

    I'll agree with you here. Although I myself dont wear tracksuit bottoms unless I'm in the gym, there's nothing wrong with them. But obviously they wouldnt be suitbale for a job interview or any sort of formal occasion.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    These people have extremely active lifestyles, you can't expect them to take the time out to get dressed just to appease the PC Brigade!!

    :eek:I seriously hope thats sarcasm!!!

    The King of Moo wrote: »
    Why? Are tracksuits not considered acceptable outdoor clothes?

    Tracksuits are acceptable outdoor clothes...... pj's are not!

    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Okay, let's ban all clothing except a shirt, tie, trousers and shoes for men in welfare offices as obviously if they're not wearing them then they're obviously not looking for work.

    That's one of the most ridiculous statements ive read on this topic, nobody is saying you have to throw on your fanciest clothes and look as sharp as possible, but FFS put on proper clothes before leaving the house!!! Only lazy animals wear pj's outside of the house. Laziness, there's no other word for it!
    Milky Moo wrote: »
    My god I can not believe people are defending the fact people technically have the right to wear pyjamas to the dole office.

    Technically I have the right to fart outrageous on the bus, but I don't do it because it just isn't socially acceptable, it would make me look like an animal and it would be highly unpleasant for those in my vicinity.

    Turning up to the dole office in your pyjamas is the height of laziness

    They're prob people who wear pj's outdoors themselves

    And yeah the Bus thing is a good example, just because something isn't in legislation doesnt mean that it's unacceptable.


  • #55
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Milky Moo wrote: »
    There is a difference between doing things consciously and unconsciously, how hard is it to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner, to dress in a pair of jeans and hoodie opposed to bed clothes?

    It annoys me that their is a sub section of our great little nation that thinks so little of any service that they feel it is ok to wake up and walk out of their house without dressing.

    It is about respect, respect for yourself and others.

    First of all "respect for yourself" is a non-issue. Just because you judge them based on their attire doesn't mean they judge themselves.

    And the fact it would be an issue for you what someone else is wearing out of "respect" seems pretentious and doesn't warrant respect.

    Not everybody holds your opinion of what constitutes proper attire in public as high as you.

    In short,

    Why should I care what you think and why should I let it dictate my decisions which are of no concern to you?


  • #56
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Antomus Prime wrote: »
    That's one of the most ridiculous statements ive read on this topic, nobody is saying you have to throw on your fanciest clothes and look as sharp as possible, but FFS put on proper clothes before leaving the house!!! Only lazy animals wear pj's outside of the house. Laziness, there's no other word for it!

    Maybe read the post I was replying to before replying to me eh?

    BTW, only lazy animals wear tracksuits outside the house/gym/exercising. See, I can talk bollocks too.


  • #57
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    I don't think the folk at the social welfare office expect to be too impressed, especially considering a lot of people going there won't have the money for decent clothes. While I think wearing pyjamas out of the house is a bit silly, I don't see the problem in going to the social welfare office in fairly casual clothes.
    There are better ways to impress someone than wearing certain clothes anyway.

    I agree that the social welfare office are entitled to ask people not to wear pyjamas as people are conditioned to seeing them worn only indoors in casual situations, but personally I'd still consider people wearing pyjamas to be people and not necessarily scumbags or sub-humans. Lazy people, sure, but still people.

    Why?
    I honestly don't understand why people get so bothered about seeing people wearing tracksuits. I don't wear them myself (except for tracksuit pants when I'm running) but I've no problem with other people wearing them. The same way I don't mind sitting on the train with 100 men wearing near-identical suits and coats, even though I don't usually wear a suit myself.

    I also remember tracksuits being quite common in the 90s, I don't see why they're now such terrible things.

    Also, if you're arguing that they're not being used for the purpose they were designed for, then I'd better take off my jeans as I'm not doing any manual labour.

    You are supposed to be actively seeking work, so you should dress appropriately for that role. Not necessarily a collar and tie, but some level of decency. In fact I think people on the dole should have to do an interview every so often and if the SW officer is not happy they are making the effort he/she should have the discretionary power to reduce dole on the spot based on certain criteria. The interview should also be filmed and kept on record. Any attempt to sue etc should be countered by the recipient having money stopped from dole if they lose the case - so if you have a genuine case of discrimination you have it on film. If no film then you win your case and get dole reinstated.

    Dole should also be reduced over time and/or replaced with food stamps. It should be just at subsistence level.

    Anyone who is genuinely unemployed and unable to find work, and there are many at the moment, should be given every assistance, including expenses to attend interviews etc (non production of receipts means cut from next dole) but in all fairness people who were unemployed during the Celtic Tiger years should be investigated now.

    And before anyone jumps down my throat, I was on the dole myself several times in the past.


  • #58
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Seachmall wrote: »
    First of all "respect for yourself" is a non-issue. Just because you judge them based on their attire doesn't mean they judge themselves.

    And the fact it would be an issue for you what someone else is wearing out of "respect" seems pretentious and doesn't warrant respect.

    Not everybody holds your opinion of what constitutes proper attire in public as high as you.

    In short,

    Why should I care what you think and why should I let it dictate my decisions which are of no concern to you?

    I suppose, if you want someone to give you a job or authorise your dole, you should care what they think and let it dictate what you wear.


  • #59
    Antomus Prime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭Antomus Prime


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    BTW, only lazy animals wear tracksuits outside the house/gym/exercising. See, I can talk bollocks too.

    If you read my hole post you'd see that I said theres nothing wrong with tracksuit bottoms outdoors. But your post imply that you would regard pj's as being the same as tracksuit bottoms. Am I wrong? Cause thats how It reads


  • #60
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    Seachmall wrote: »
    First of all "respect for yourself" is a non-issue. Just because you judge them based on their attire doesn't mean they judge themselves.

    And the fact it would be an issue for you what someone else is wearing out of "respect" seems pretentious and doesn't warrant respect.

    Not everybody holds your opinion of what constitutes proper attire in public as high as you.

    In short,

    Why should I care what you think and why should I let it dictate my decisions which are of no concern to you?

    You shouldn't. But you shouldn't expect me to hand you money for nothing either.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    professore wrote: »
    You shouldn't. But you shouldn't expect me to hand you money for nothing either.

    Ah, so we're now enforcing opinions of proper attire by threatening to withhold benefits I'm legally entitled to?

    Very nice...


Advertisement
Advertisement