Social welfare office bans pyjamas for interviews

professore wrote: »

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.

I'd agree with that but qualify it by adding on "...given their financial circumstances." As long as someone's clearly made some kind of effort by trying to scrub themselves up a bit, even if their clothes are fairly casual I think it's ok.

Realistically, if someone's previously been working and is actively seeking employment, then they're going to make the effort anyway, and probably still have some spiffy-looking clothes.

If someone's not very qualified, and not looking for any high-paying work, then I don't think it's so necessary to dress up, and they're not going to have a lot of money, except maybe to get some cheap stuff in Dunne's or Penney's.

So while I think wearing pyjamas to your interview is ridiculous, I don't think wearing a tracksuit or t-shirt and jeans is such a big deal, especially if the person is making an effort with their conduct in the interview.

Talk about the valley of the squinting windows! far too many Irish people are far too "pass remarkable" and intolerant of anything that strays outside the narrow tunnel path of what passes for a life in their own experience.

If the people of this country were half as good at getting the things done that need to be done as they are at getting upset at what others wear, there wouldn't be much need for social welfare offices anyway.

I have never noticed women or men outdoors in pyjamas in Portlaoise, perhaps because I haven't been looking, and I only became aware of it in Dublin a couple of years ago when my daughter, born and raised in Finland, pointed some women out to me - they were shopping in pyjamas - and commented "How cheap!" I agree, but - like my barrister daughter - know very well that one of the most difficult things that any democratic state can achieve is to draft a dress code that is not riddled with absurdities.:)

Anyway, the reality is that there are far fewer jobs available than there are people looking for them, and most people going to the SW office know only too well that it makes no difference whether they are wearing a Saville Row tailored suit or a Lady gaga outfit. They are unlikely to get a job anyway, unless they have a really special skill or qualification.:rolleyes:

I recently needed a carpenter to do some very demanding woodwork in the windows of my 130-year-old preserved house in Laois. I was very happy to find one, and I wouldn't have given a sh1t if he had turned up in a tutu, just as long as he did the work well. Happily, he did.:)

MagicMarker wrote: »

But there is something wrong with tracksuit bottoms outside, don't you understand? Therefore they should also be banned from social welfare offices, along with designer labels, fake tan, shorts and football jerseys. I thought all of this was obvious, since we're banning things that we're not personally in agreement with. Oh and lazy, we're banning lazyness.

Also, in future all clothes worn in social welfare offices should be stain free and freshly washed and ironed.

Thats just pointless dribble, pj's are not tracksuits! They're bed attire, and if someone is too lazy to get up and get dressed and go look for a job then they shouldnt be entitled to anything from the state. People should have a bit of respect from themselves and put on some proper clothes in the morning!

If a welfare office wants people to show up in suitable attire for collecting JOB SEEKERS allowance then they should do just that. You're not entitled to job seekers if youre not seeking a job!!! And someone walking around in pj's, in my opinion, is not seeking a job!

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Talk about the valley of the squinting windows! far too many Irish people are far too "pass remarkable" and intolerant of anything that strays outside the narrow tunnel path of what passes for a life in their own experience.

If the people of this country were half as good at getting the things done that need to be done as they are at getting upset at what others wear, there wouldn't be much need for social welfare offices anyway.

I have never noticed women or men outdoors in pyjamas in Portlaoise, perhaps because I haven't been looking, and I only became aware of it in Dublin a couple of years ago when my daughter, born and raised in Finland, pointed some women out to me - they were shopping in pyjamas - and commented "How cheap!" I agree, but - like my barrister daughter - know very well that one of the most difficult things that any democratic state can achieve is to draft a dress code that is not riddled with absurdities.:)

Anyway, the reality is that there are far fewer jobs available than there are people looking for them, and most people going to the SW office know only too well that it makes no difference whether they are wearing a Saville Row tailored suit or a Lady gaga outfit. They are unlikely to get a job anyway, unless they have a really special skill or qualification.:rolleyes:

I recently needed a carpenter to do some very demanding woodwork in the windows of my 130-year-old preserved house in Laois. I was very happy to find one, and I wouldn't have given a sh1t if he had turned up in a tutu, just as long as he did the work well. Happily, he did.:)

Well laaaa dee daaa.

After all that, your point comes back to the fact that appearance doesn't bother you, as long as they do the work.

It's quite obvious that any clown that turns up in pyjamas for a social welfare interview, has about as much interest in getting a job as I do in what type of windows are fitted in someones house.

twinQuins wrote: »

Okay, look at it this way: we have laws banning public indecency. How is that any different from this?

Seeing a naked person doesn't harm you in any way but we still outlaw it. I'm not saying they're exactly the same (before I hear cries of false equivalence), my point is that we do legislate what people can - or cannot - wear already.

And a nudist would debate those laws (with some valid points, I'm sure).

The absolutism here that PJs in public are some sort of violation of decency is down-right stupid.

I'm not talking about attending interviews, I'm talking about just being in public,

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

What a joke. Nanny state.

Agreed. This Nanny State is handing out free money to these professional lay abouts.

It is time the Nanny State cut the crap and cut these people off once and for all.

I am tired of funding these doss cünts to swan about in pyjamas.

longhalloween wrote: »

It's actually not.

Had a friend come over from Germany and she remarked that Irish people must be serious about their fitness judging by the amount of 'tracksuited joggers' around.

Wearing tracksuits as a standard day wear is completely scummy IMO

Why? How does it harm anyone?

I can understand not liking to see pyjamas outdoors as we're used to thinking of them as basically undergarments. I don't like seeing pyjamas in public, though I don't tend to give it a second thought.

But I don't get the prejudice against tracksuits - outdoor clothes - being worn outside.

ejmaztec wrote: »

They could be unemployed mattress testers in uniform.

You Legend!!....