Would you work somewhere without sick pay?

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 08:59AM

il gatto wrote: »

Bully for you. You realise however, I take it, that your individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many people.

Everyone's individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many other people - well done for that blinding flash of knowledge - but that does not mean they cannot do anything about their circumstances. There are those who genuinely are screwed, typically for exceptional reasons, but in the reality, the vast majority don't fall into that category. Most people, if they apply themselves and see their plan through, can change their circumstances.

As in you may be qualified in a narrow field where there's no opportunities to switch jobs. Or live in a small town where any jobs are scarce.
You have the wherewithal, opportunity and luck (or random chance, whatever you subscribe to) that it's working for you. Some people moan because they don't.

If you're too specialized, you retrain, ether on your own or with a course. If you live in a small town where any jobs are scarce, you move. If you're unlucky, you try again until your luck turns. Or you review and perhaps change your tactics, or seek another solution.

But if you give up because it's too hard, or the gods are against you, or an answer does not magically present itself immediately (without having bothered to research one) then stop moaning. Unless you are one of that very, very small percentage of people who have a very genuine reason why they can't do something about their situation, then it's just that you find it easier to complain than do something about it.

Jawgap · 30-06-2015 09:00AM

il gatto wrote: »

As in gross nepotism? Apart from quite specialised rolls, it seems to be the recurring theme with people I know who work in the more "general" areas of the public sector. They "know" somebody.

PAC handles most of the recruitment - so you can 'know' who you want for all the good it'll do given the actual selection is carried out at arm's length from the recruiting department / agency.

Saying that, because it's somewhat anachronistic navigating the recruitment process is a challenge for someone who doesn't take the time to study up on it or who assumes it's comparable to processes run by other large organisations or who assumes that because it's the public sector it's easy. It's not, and having someone on the 'inside' can be help because they can help with preparing applications, personal statements etc and where candidates can place the emphasis in interviews.

Where I did observe nepotism in the PS / CS, it was in the more senior appointments which are still highly politicised.

As for absentee / sickness rates in the PS, these tend to be over-estimated because the prevalence of keeping the long term ill on the books, even if they are not being paid. For example, the place I previously worked in had an average sick days / per employee figure of between 8 and 10 days in any given year - that was halved when you took out those who'd been off for more than a year.

somesoldiers · 30-06-2015 09:00AM

Anyone know if it's true that Ryanair actually deduct your normal pay if you are sick?

A cousin of mine started with them (not that long ago so very much still green) and excused herself from a family outing when one of the others suggested she call in sick saying she couldn't afford to as she would be docked money if out sick!

il gatto · 30-06-2015 09:14AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Everyone's individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many other people - well done for that blinding flash of knowledge - but that does not mean they cannot do anything about their circumstances. There are those who genuinely are screwed, typically for exceptional reasons, but in the reality, the vast majority don't fall into that category. Most people, if they apply themselves and see their plan through, can change their circumstances.

If you're too specialized, you retrain, ether on your own or with a course. If you live in a small town where any jobs are scarce, you move. If you're unlucky, you try again until your luck turns. Or you review and perhaps change your tactics, or seek another solution.

But if you give up because it's too hard, or the gods are against you, or an answer does not magically present itself immediately (without having bothered to research one) then stop moaning. Unless you are one of that very, very small percentage of people who have a very genuine reason why they can't do something about their situation, then it's just that you find it easier to complain than do something about it.

I'd curb the sarcasm. Your motivational pointers aren't as clever as you think. Because something worked for you means very little. People retrain, they move, they work their b@llocks off and sometimes it just doesn't happen.
And many people simply can't. They're too old to switch career, they work hours so long as to preclude retraining, they have family reponsibilities which prevent them moving, they are dyslexic, they can't afford to up skill themselves etc. Last thing they want is some self-congratulatory tw@t talking down to them like children with helpful pointers like "renegotiate" and "retrain".
There's always someone who puts their own good fortune down to themselves and their own efforts, but don't recognise the efforts of those less fortunate and ascribe their "failure" to a lack of work ethic, drive, brains. Sometimes people work just as hard and get dealt a sh1tty hand in life. It's bordering on psychotic to not recognise that.

And if you could link to those statistics where "most" people could do something about their circumstances.

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 09:26AM

il gatto wrote: »

I'd curb the sarcasm. Your motivational pointers aren't as clever as you think. Because something worked for you means very little. People retrain, they move, they work their b@llocks off and sometimes it just doesn't happen.

And I'd disagree. I'm not simply speaking for myself, but have seen numerous others do so, sometimes taking years and gargantuan effort, but getting there in the end. Suggesting that you somehow have a better understanding than me, for some magical reason, is a bit laughable.

And many people simply can't. They're too old to switch career, they work hours so long as to preclude retraining, they have family reponsibilities which prevent them moving, they are dyslexic, they can't afford to up skill themselves etc. Last thing they want is some self-congratulatory tw@t talking down to them like children with helpful pointers like "renegotiate" and "retrain".

I've accepted that some cannot. But just because someone may be older, or be dyslexic alone is not reason to doom them to failure. You might consider that the attitude of some "self-congratulatory tw@t", but by comparison I'd suggest your attitude is that of some self-indulgent loser who has constructed a rationalization how his own shortcomings are someone else's fault. Just because you feel that way does not mean that others should give up as easily as you.

There's always someone who puts their own good fortune down to themselves and their own efforts, but don't recognise the efforts of those less fortunate and ascribe their "failure" to a lack of work ethic, drive, brains.

I'm not. I absolutely do not think any less of those who try and fail. I think less of those who don't try at all and then make excuses as to why they need not bother.

il gatto · 30-06-2015 09:35AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I'd disagree. I'm not simply speaking for myself, but have seen numerous others do so, sometimes taking years and gargantuan effort, but getting there in the end. Suggesting that you somehow have a better understanding than me, for some magical reason, is a bit laughable.

I've accepted that some cannot. But just because someone may be older, or be dyslexic alone is not reason to doom them to failure. You might consider that the attitude of some "self-congratulatory tw@t", but by comparison I'd suggest your attitude is that of some self-indulgent loser who has constructed a rationalization how his own shortcomings are someone else's fault. Just because you feel that way does not mean that others should give up as easily as you.

I'm not. I absolutely do not think any less of those who try and fail. I think less of those who don't try at all and then make excuses as to why they need not bother.

Loser? A self-indulgent one at that. I'm quite happy thanks. I don't know why you thought my empathy for others was an indication of some failure or character weakness.
"Others should give up as easily as you". Have I? Given up, I mean? How did you come to that conclusion?
You've done so amazing that I must automatically be a loser by comparison, or do you take being called self satisfied on an anonymous message board really personally?

il gatto · 30-06-2015 09:52AM

Jawgap wrote: »

PAC handles most of the recruitment - so you can 'know' who you want for all the good it'll do given the actual selection is carried out at arm's length from the recruiting department / agency.

Saying that, because it's somewhat anachronistic navigating the recruitment process is a challenge for someone who doesn't take the time to study up on it or who assumes it's comparable to processes run by other large organisations or who assumes that because it's the public sector it's easy. It's not, and having someone on the 'inside' can be help because they can help with preparing applications, personal statements etc and where candidates can place the emphasis in interviews.

Where I did observe nepotism in the PS / CS, it was in the more senior appointments which are still highly politicised.

As for absentee / sickness rates in the PS, these tend to be over-estimated because the prevalence of keeping the long term ill on the books, even if they are not being paid. For example, the place I previously worked in had an average sick days / per employee figure of between 8 and 10 days in any given year - that was halved when you took out those who'd been off for more than a year.

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them. I don't care. I hate the idea of living in a cubicle replicating paperwork, but there is an absolutely apparent thread of nepotism in many appointments. And not at senior levels, but in the low level ones. Knowing how to apply through someone on the inside is not what gets you the job from scores of candidates. The complicated process is as much to mask the reality as it is best practice.

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 09:52AM

il gatto wrote: »

Loser? A self-indulgent one at that. I'm quite happy thanks. I don't know why you thought my empathy for others was an indication of some failure or character weakness.

And I don't know how you thought that my belief in people's capacity to change their own lives made me a "self-congratulatory tw@t", but there you go and given you started with the name-calling I don't have much sympathy for your sense of offence now.

"Others should give up as easily as you". Have I? Given up, I mean? How did you come to that conclusion?

No less a presumption than yours of me.

You've done so amazing that I must automatically be a loser by comparison, or do you take being called self satisfied on an anonymous message board really personally?

You're the one who decided get personal by starting with the name-calling, when I checked last. So I suspect it wasn't me that took things as personally as you did.

il gatto · 30-06-2015 10:02AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I don't know how you thought that my belief in people's capacity to change their own lives made me a "self-congratulatory tw@t", but there you go and given you started with the name-calling I don't have much sympathy for your sense of offence now.

No less a presumption than yours of me.

You're the one who decided get personal by starting with the name-calling, when I checked last. So I suspect it wasn't me that took things as personally as you did.

"In my experience, if you're not getting benefits such as sick pay, that most likely means you are being compensated at a higher level (e.g. contracting) or you have a crap job.

If you're not happy with either situation, it's up to you to do something about it - retrain/study, get another job, renegotiate your role - and get into a situation you are happy with. Otherwise, stop complaining and expecting others to solve your problems for you"

Obnoxious attitude. Your next post made clear your drive compared to lily liveried nobodies.
I take no offence because I couldn't care less. I just found your attitude to "losers" in "crap jobs" who want "a bow on it" to stink. So your sympathy is neither desired or warranted fortunately. I suspect it's hard gained at the best of times.

Jawgap · 30-06-2015 10:09AM

il gatto wrote: »

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them. I don't care. I hate the idea of living in a cubicle replicating paperwork, but there is an absolutely apparent thread of nepotism in many appointments. And not at senior levels, but in the low level ones. Knowing how to apply through someone on the inside is not what gets you the job from scores of candidates. The complicated process is as much to mask the reality as it is best practice.

Sounds like someone applied and got rejected

Probably thought it was a cakewalk.

People can get jobs in the PS/CS long after they are advertised because panels are formed from which prospective future candidates are drawn as vacancies arise - this prevents costly recruitment campaigns being run and re-run on a never ending basis.

No job is just 'created.' First the parent department has to agree that a need exists before a post in the establishment can be created - then DPER have to agree, then the post has to be established - then the parent department has to agree there is a need to fill the post - then DPER have to agree - then someone has to find money in the budget to fund the post - then DPER has to agree to the money identified being spent on filling the post - then sanction has to be sought to run a recruitment campaign.

Very few jobs in the CS/PS are cubicle-bound, paper-shuffling jobs - in fact probably the only thing I miss about my previous PS job was the minimal amount of time spent in the office compared to my current job - on the plus side my office is home-based, so my commute is a lot more tolerable

il gatto · 30-06-2015 10:27AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like someone applied and got rejected Probably thought it was a cakewalk.

People can get jobs in the PS/CS long after they are advertised because panels are formed from which prospective future candidates are drawn as vacancies arise - this prevents costly recruitment campaigns being run and re-run on a never ending basis.

No job is just 'created.' First the parent department has to agree that a need exists before a post in the establishment can be created - then DPER have to agree, then the post has to be established - then the parent department has to agree there is a need to fill the post - then DPER have to agree - then someone has to find money in the budget to fund the post - then DPER has to agree to the money identified being spent on filling the post - then sanction has to be sought to run a recruitment campaign.

Very few jobs in the CS/PS are cubicle-bound, paper-shuffling jobs - in fact probably the only thing I miss about my previous PS job was the minimal amount of time spent in the office compared to my current job - on the plus side my office is home-based, so my commute is a lot more tolerable

I'm sorry but that is the official line. I did try once. I was told it was filled internally. Turns out the guy who got it I used to work with. He was not an internal appointment. His wife however had a good job in the same department. I don't care as it was 7-8 years ago and I've always been glad I didn't get it. I did turn down an offer to "put in a word" for me "wink, wink" that I shouldn't have turned down in retrospect, but it was implied that I had an "in". So I had my shot and declined. No bitterness here.
There was an inquiry supposed to investigate multiple jobs the HSE had created and staffed about 5-6 years ago when the economy crashed. People had given nieces and sons jobs. It all went quiet. This was after the recruitment freeze.
The process may be there on paper but it is abused left right and centre. I know good candidates who've been on multiple panels for ages and never got a job and some ill equipped people who've got a nice pensionable job just when they needed it who happen to have "contacts". I appreciate you have belief in the system but I know enough of how it works to realise that it is frequently circumvented.
There are thousands of cubicle jobs in the PS. Every town in Ireland has hundreds, be they CoCo, Uni/IT, HSE, Revenue, Social Welfare. I know dozens of people who work in them with their funny postcards pinned up, their special mug and their stapler with their name on it. Strikes fear into me as a job prospect.

jester77 · 30-06-2015 10:31AM

This little piggy wrote: »

I've never heard of any company having a policy for this, it would be an amazing benefit for me.

I can see people arguing against implementing a policy like this because they would say it favours people with children, but the fact is children do get sick a lot, and if you don't have family nearby and available to take them, well you can't exactly leave them home alone!

I've had to take last minute annual leave days when my son was sick; my partner has had to take unpaid leave. Either way, it doesn't look good taking annual or unpaid leave with no notice. If I were offered a job with a policy like this, it would be a major selling point for me.

I'm interested to know what your colleagues who don't have children think of this policy, though? Any resentment there?

No one has ever brought it up or mentioned anything negatively towards it. It's part of the health system here so the days have to be given to you, not a company policy. Most people where I work love their job, so would rather be working than at home with a sick child. If anything they would feel sympathy more than anything else.

Jawgap · 30-06-2015 10:32AM

il gatto wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is the official line. I did try once. I was told it was filled internally. Turns out the guy who got it I used to work with. He was not an internal appointment. His wife however had a good job in the same department. I don't care as it was 7-8 years ago and I've always been glad I didn't get it. I did turn down an offer to "put in a word" for me "wink, wink" that I shouldn't have turned down in retrospect, but it was implied that I had an "in". So I had my shot and declined. No bitterness here.
There was an inquiry supposed to investigate multiple jobs the HSE had created and staffed about 5-6 years ago when the economy crashed. People had given nieces and sons jobs. It all went quiet. This was after the recruitment freeze.
The process may be there on paper but it is abused left right and centre. I know good candidates who've been on multiple panels for ages and never got a job and some ill equipped people who've got a nice pensionable job just when they needed it who happen to have "contacts". I appreciate you have belief in the system but I know enough of how it works to realise that it is frequently circumvented.
There are thousands of cubicle jobs in the PS. Every town in Ireland has hundreds, be they CoCo, Uni/IT, HSE, Revenue, Social Welfare. I know dozens of people who work in them with their funny postcards pinned up, their special mug and their stapler with their name on it. Strikes fear into me as a job prospect.

Based on the rest of your post, and your previous posts, I believe you

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 10:33AM

il gatto wrote: »

Obnoxious attitude. Your next post made clear your drive compared to lily liveried nobodies.

Grow up. The point I repeatedly made is almost anyone can do it if they decide to do it. Not that I personally have drive, but that almost anyone can and more often than not people don't bother because they start making excuses on how it's not possible or not worth the effort.

You then took offence at this and started with the name-calling, which frankly said more of your insecurities than anything else.

I take no offence because I couldn't care less. I just found your attitude to "losers" in "crap jobs" who want "a bow on it" to stink.

Yeah, your response just screams how you couldn't care less :rolleyes:

This thread is about 'crap jobs', and if you are in one, then call it for what it is. I discussed how to look at improving one's situation, either within the job or by getting a new one. You discussed how life is hard and how you're doomed not to be able to change anything and took offence at the notion that this this may not always be the case.

From what I can see, you didn't contribute anything positive to the discussion except indulge in the need to bellyache and do nothing. What else have you offered here? Seriously.

30-06-2015 10:34AM

il gatto wrote: »

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them.

I have no issue with this. Generally this happens because a person internally is ideal for the job and the job wouldn't even be advertised only for it has to be due to the rules of public sector appointments.

In other words the issue is that the job shouldn't have to be advertised rather than the internal person shouldn't get it automatically.

Also what some call nepotism others call good networking....... its smart to get to know people and try to know the people in the positions who can get you a job/promotion etc.

theteal · 30-06-2015 10:37AM

I've just assumed its always been part of any employment contracts I've signed. An annual salary doesn't change because of a sick day. I've had 2 sick days in 10 years so I can't really say its a priority.

Dodge · 30-06-2015 10:43AM

Can't believe it took until page 8 for a thread like this to turn into an examination of the public sector!?

must be the weather

il gatto · 30-06-2015 10:45AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grow up. The point I repeatedly made is almost anyone can do it if they decide to do it. Not that I personally have drive, but that almost anyone can and more often than not people don't bother because they start making excuses on how it's not possible or not worth the effort.

You then took offence at this and started with the name-calling, which frankly said more of your insecurities than anything else.

Yeah, your response just screams how you couldn't care less :rolleyes:

This thread is about 'crap jobs', and if you are in one, then call it for what it is. I discussed how to look at improving one's situation, either within the job or by getting a new one. You discussed how life is hard and how you're doomed not to be able to change anything and took offence at the notion that this this may not always be the case.

From what I can see, you didn't contribute anything positive to the discussion except indulge in the need to bellyache and do nothing. What else have you offered here? Seriously.

I offered a reasonable attitude to people who have a "crap" job and may find it difficult to improve their situation. Yet again you've decided "almost anyone" can do it. All I did was take issue with that notion and the bolshy way you chose to voice it. If you think crowing is offering anything, I suspect you are mistaken.
And again, why the insistence that I have one of these "crap" jobs? Or that I feel "doomed"? Or I'm insecure? Because I disagree with you and I don't like your attitude it seems. Must make me an insecure loser. How blissfully simplistic things must be for you. "Fer or agin' us". Strivers and losers. Black and white with nary a shade of grey to discuss.
And no sick pay has become quite normal by the way. It's not an indicator of a crap job, rather of cash strapped companies and unscrupulous employers using the recession to make some "readjustments" to their financial responsibilities.

30-06-2015 10:47AM

Paid or unpaid. If I'm sick I'm taking sick leave. And I wish you big macho cúnts would do the same. It's verrrrryyyy annoying sitting beside someone coughing, sniffling and sneezing all day and probably doing the same amount of work as if they were at home anyway (which is fúck all!)

il gatto · 30-06-2015 10:49AM

Hailee Lemon Flare wrote: »

I have no issue with this. Generally this happens because a person internally is ideal for the job and the job wouldn't even be advertised only for it has to be due to the rules of public sector appointments.

In other words the issue is that the job shouldn't have to be advertised rather than the internal person shouldn't get it automatically.

Also what some call nepotism others call good networking....... its smart to get to know people and try to know the people in the positions who can get you a job/promotion etc.

Not internal appointments. That was what disappointed people applying were told. It was to explain away why their applications were going to a panel but the actual job was gone. I found out weeks later who'd actually got it. Like I said, I've always been glad I didn't get it.

il gatto · 30-06-2015 10:56AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Based on the rest of your post, and your previous posts, I believe you

You're looking for an agenda that's not there. There's an attitude in the PS that those outside it have no understanding of how it really works. There are 300,000 current public sector employees and probably another 200,000 retired PS employees. Everyone knows them, is married to them, has siblings, parents, mates etc. Everyone knows how it "officially" works and indeed, that is how it works in the majority of cases. But everyone also knows how malleable that system can be for certain people.
There's one or two jobs in the PS that I would quite like. The rest just aren't for me. I don't need a vendetta to point out that the hiring process is regularly abused.

Sleepy · 30-06-2015 10:56AM

I'm not contractually entitled to sick-pay but I've never had a days pay deducted from my salary when I've been too sick to come into the office. Then again, I do a fair amount of business travel and don't mind putting in a late night when it's needed. It's swings and roundabouts. Unless you're working with total arseholes there's always room for some give and take.

Jawgap · 30-06-2015 11:05AM

il gatto wrote: »

You're looking for an agenda that's not there. There's an attitude in the PS that those outside it have no understanding of how it really works. There are 300,000 current public sector employees and probably another 200,000 retired PS employees. Everyone knows them, is married to them, has siblings, parents, mates etc. Everyone knows how it "officially" works and indeed, that is how it works in the majority of cases. But everyone also knows how malleable that system can be for certain people.
There's one or two jobs in the PS that I would quite like. The rest just aren't for me. I don't need a vendetta to point out that the hiring process is regularly abused.

Complain then

www.cpsa.ie/en/

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 11:11AM

il gatto wrote: »

I offered a reasonable attitude to people who have a "crap" job and may find it difficult to improve their situation.

Bollocks. Where did you offer a reasonable attitude? From what I can see all you've done is moan about how the system is 'fixed'.

Look, if you really couldn't care less, just stop responding to me. Continuing to do so simply makes it look like I hit a nerve with you.

il gatto · 30-06-2015 11:14AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Complain then

www.cpsa.ie/en/

But i've already said I didn't want the job. And i had an offer of a dodgy "in" for another job. I would complain, why? On behalf of others? Or you using it as a put up or shut up post? Should I send you on the emails to "prove" I've complained?
Anyone who can't accept the PS hiring process was often corrupted is either naive or deluding themselves. I won't stoop to saying you know and won't admit it.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I'm sure others will see their own views reflected here one way or the other.

il gatto · 30-06-2015 11:21AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bollocks. Where did you offer a reasonable attitude? From what I can see all you've done is moan about how the system is 'fixed'.

Look, if you really couldn't care less, just stop responding to me. Continuing to do so simply makes it look like I hit a nerve with you.

On the contrary. You've taken grave exception to being disagreed with. You must not take kindly to being contradicted. You steamed into a thread of people reasonably discussing their situations and views to tell them it was basically their own fault for having crap jobs and not being like you, them threw hissy fit when someone called you self satisfied.
Your attitude was they could do better. My attitude was that the majority were doing as well as they can.
The discussion on PS hiring is an aside. It's not "fixed" against me or anyone else. Just tilted in favour or some. One can point it out without having a personal score to settle.

Jawgap · 30-06-2015 11:41AM

il gatto wrote: »

But i've already said I didn't want the job. And i had an offer of a dodgy "in" for another job. I would complain, why? On behalf of others? Or you using it as a put up or shut up post? Should I send you on the emails to "prove" I've complained?
Anyone who can't accept the PS hiring process was often corrupted is either naive or deluding themselves. I won't stoop to saying you know and won't admit it.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I'm sure others will see their own views reflected here one way or the other.

No, just in my experience it's remarkable how it's the people who were unsuccessful are utterly convinced the system of recruitment is corrupt or set against them.

In my experience, the reason people don't get jobs in the PS/CS is because either they are not suitable fits; they underestimated the recruitment process; or plain old fashioned hubris.

If anything, I've found the private sector more 'nepotistic' and 'corrupt' - the recruitment processes aren't nearly as transparent, there's no process of appeal or review and the criteria for selection are often opaque at best - not that I'm complaining, as it was those same processes that led me out of the PS to my current role

il gatto · 30-06-2015 12:02PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, just in my experience it's remarkable how it's the people who were unsuccessful are utterly convinced the system of recruitment is corrupt or set against them.

In my experience, the reason people don't get jobs in the PS/CS is because either they are not suitable fits; they underestimated the recruitment process; or plain old fashioned hubris.

If anything, I've found the private sector more 'nepotistic' and 'corrupt' - the recruitment processes aren't nearly as transparent, there's no process of appeal or review and the criteria for selection are often opaque at best - not that I'm complaining, as it was those same processes that led me out of the PS to my current role

In the private sector you can hire who you see fit. You advertise but there's no stipulations on who you hire (unless you hire a chimp to run a huge company, in which case you may be done for reckless trading). It's your money/company.
PS jobs are public money and that puts them into a completely different area.
The job I applied for I didn't really want or need. I felt no hubris at being told it was filled internally. I didn't care until I found out they'd lied. The guy who got it was actually less qualified and having worked with him, one of the laziest people I've ever met. Sound enough guy and smart enough and I liked him. But unsuitable in most ways. And married to someone with pull in that department.
It's not underestimating the recruitment process. It's called being lied to. Getting a fair shot and failing, disappointing but I can live with it. Being fobbed off as a job funded by my taxes gets "given" to someone. That's annoying. Regardless of the fact I didn't really want the job.

The Corinthian · 30-06-2015 12:26PM

il gatto wrote: »

On the contrary. You've taken grave exception to being disagreed with.

Whatever. Your posts speak for themselves; bellyaching and absolutely no constructive advice. And the moment you hear something that you disliked, not to mention misinterpreted, you got personal almost immediately.

The discussion on PS hiring is an aside. It's not "fixed" against me or anyone else. Just tilted in favour or some.

So it's not fixed because it's fixed in favour of some rather than being fixed against others? Right.

TomBtheGoat · 30-06-2015 03:52PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Never even worked anywhere with the glorious fancy notions of holiday pay, overtime, maternity pay, or bank holidays in lieu either, and never employed anyone that had them notions.

Then I'd like to take this opportunity, to welcome you to the 21st century.

Would you work somewhere without sick pay?

Comments