Let the race to the bottom begin

greendom

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I think the young folks who read this website don't realise how useless new employees are.

As an employer who has used interns in the past, I lose money by giving them a job. It is not worth it.

You need to accept you are not valuable unless you know what you're doing, i.e. have relevant experience.

It's one thing to be considered not valuable, quite another to be considered worthless

wmpdd3

It's an employers job to select staff who can do the job required and develope them way past where they even knew they could go. I've lost count of how many 4 hr weekend people I've taken on that are now managers.

seraphimvc

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I think the young folks who read this website don't realise how useless new employees are.

As an employer who has used interns in the past, I lose money by giving them a job. It is not worth it.

You need to accept you are not valuable unless you know what you're doing, i.e. have relevant experience.

wow, LOL. ok, no disrespect/offense or anything, but seriously, your post is highly unfair and shallow. so, you were never a 'newbie' before? you were so EXPERIENCED before you get your 1st job?? you were so useful before you get your 1st real working experience, right?? the celtic tiger era people have some delusion that they were so easy to get a job back then because of they were 'good'.

still cant feel the pain??lets do some imagination. do you have children? now think of of as if you have a kid just graduated from school and cant find a job now because of him being 'newbie'.

provence3

Denerick wrote: »

Again people are overlooking the obvious. Sure, a relatively short stint as an intern may lead to a high paying job. The point is that the only people who can afford to live for free are the middle class; therefore it is an egregious glass ceiling and prejudicial against people of humbler means. Its a disgusting system really, there is no reason why the company can't pay a basic subsistence allowance (In the region of 150 euro per week) that will make the world of difference to 000s of people, boost social mobility, and eliminate the inequality of oppurtunity now in the system.

In short, take the racket out of the middle class job protection programme.

Maybe the real question we need to ask is whether these companies, and the middle class people who design their internship policies, really want a busload of plebs invading their companies, talking about dog racing, and generally being loutish and proletarian?

100% Agreed!

Mr. Loverman

seraphimvc wrote: »

wow, LOL. ok, no disrespect/offense or anything, but seriously, your post is highly unfair and shallow. so, you were never a 'newbie' before? you were so EXPERIENCED before you get your 1st job?? you were so useful before you get your 1st real working experience, right?? the celtic tiger era people have some delusion that they were so easy to get a job back then because of they were 'good'.

still cant feel the pain??lets do some imagination. do you have children? now think of of as if you have a kid just graduated from school and cant find a job now because of him being 'newbie'.

I'm not sure where you got the impression I said I was never once a newbie.

We all have to start at the bottom.

You just need to realise that employers take a huge risk and in general lose money for a few months when they hire someone without experience.

Obviously this is not true for all jobs. I am talking about skilled jobs like software development, etc.

Employers don't owe you anything and you are not entitled to a job. No point getting upset by it, it's reality!

experiMental

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I

Employers don't owe you anything and you are not entitled to a job. No point getting upset by it, it's reality!

You sir, have almost hit the bottom yourself.

Consider this: according to human rights, a person has a right to live. If a person can't make enough money off social welfare to survive, then he/she needs additional means to make money. In most cases, this involves getting some sort of a job or finding any other way of earning for living. In Ireland, there are not so many other means of earning money, because everything is so intensely regulated. Therefore, this person is entitled to a job, if he/she wants to survive. Not everyone can start their own business.

Consider another scenario: if nobody is entitled to a job, who will pay the taxes to supplement social welfare? So to make your statement more politically correct, I would say that only a certain percentage of people are entitled to a job.

Mr. Loverman

experiMental wrote: »

You sir, have almost hit the bottom yourself.

Consider this: according to human rights, a person has a right to live. If a person can't make enough money off social welfare to survive, then he/she needs additional means to make money. In most cases, this involves getting some sort of a job or finding any other way of earning for living. In Ireland, there are not so many other means of earning money, because everything is so intensely regulated. Therefore, this person is entitled to a job, if he/she wants to survive. Not everyone can start their own business.

Consider another scenario: if nobody is entitled to a job, who will pay the taxes to supplement social welfare? So to make your statement more politically correct, I would say that only a certain percentage of people are entitled to a job.

That makes no sense.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement

experiMental

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

That makes no sense.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement

I hear ya, sometimes a statement like "2+2=4" doesn't make sense. "Employer's responsibility" and "being entitled to a job" are just made-up concepts. Everyone has a different opinion about them.

Look at it this way: the planet could function perfectly without humans.

We have just built and made stuff for the sake of progress, when we could perfectly do without some of it. Now that we screwed up the world, we have found out that some jobs may actually be responsible for screwing up the world. That's one of the reasons why there's a difficulty in establishing which job should be paid and which ones shouldn't be.

So either: give up on solving this problem and let society degenerate ordo something about it. Saying how new workers are useless and stuff like that isn't going to help.

On the other hand, I could do sweet f*ck all for ages, and say "oh, I'm not entitled to a job, that's the reality". That would be a pretty nice excuse in that case.

Mr. Loverman

Not too sure what you're on about.

My point still stands that inexperienced employees are not useful for a number of months. Where I work inexperienced employees are fairly useless for about a year or two.

It is up to the individual to make sure they are employable. It is naive to think you deserve a job or should walk into a job. The world owes you nothing.

If that means working for free for a few months to get the required experience, so be it.

fat__tony

Employers in Ireland these days are generally complete bastards to work for.

The majority of them will regularly peddle out nonsense such as 'you're lucky to have a job' and 'there's a recession going on'.

I'm now in a position where I've managed to show my current employers that they are in fact lucky to have me and value my skills, experience and ideas.

I can honestly say there's not a hope in hell Id work in Ireland again unless the tables turn in favour of the employee which won't be for a very long time.

seraphimvc

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Not too sure what you're on about.

My point still stands that inexperienced employees are not useful for a number of months. Where I work inexperienced employees are fairly useless for about a year or two.

It is up to the individual to make sure they are employable. It is naive to think you deserve a job or should walk into a job. The world owes you nothing.

If that means working for free for a few months to get the required experience, so be it.

It seems that we have abit of misunderstanding here: where on earth did you get that idea from any posts in this thread???

is not a problem of 'If that means working for free for a few months to get the required experience, so be it.' because if that's the case ANYONE will do a 3months internship etc. the problem is that there is simply no jobs in ireland and these employers are exploiting this fact to get 'free workers'. have you not read someone said there some 9months pay-less job etc??

and again, IMAGINE that, you are in our shoes, would you still say the same thing? or rather, to contribute to this forum/thread, tell us your suggestions to solve/improve this unemployment sh!t.

Mr. Loverman

seraphimvc wrote: »

It seems that we have abit of misunderstanding here: where on earth did you get that idea from any posts in this thread???

is not a problem of 'If that means working for free for a few months to get the required experience, so be it.' because if that's the case ANYONE will do a 3months internship etc. the problem is that there is simply no jobs in ireland and these employers are exploiting this fact to get 'free workers'. have you not read someone said there some 9months pay-less job etc??

and again, IMAGINE that, you are in our shoes, would you still say the same thing? or rather, to contribute to this forum/thread, tell us your suggestions to solve/improve this unemployment sh!t.

A previous poster said people are entitled to a job.

As I have stated a few times, the solution to having no experience is to get experience.

In our current work environment this means:

a) emigrating
b) doing an internship
c) hoping an employer will give you a chance

The person who has spent 6 months doing an internship is much more desirable than someone who spent 6 months complaining about being unemployed.

If you think about the situation rationally (not emotionally) you will know what to do.

chillywilly

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Not too sure what you're on about.

My point still stands that inexperienced employees are not useful for a number of months. Where I work inexperienced employees are fairly useless for about a year or two.

No offense but did you ever question your management/training skills? It should not take you 2 years to train an employee to a good standard and if the employee is not good after two years surely your management intuition would tell you to let them go?

chillywilly

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

The person who has spent 6 months doing an internship is much more desirable than someone who spent 6 months complaining about being unemployed.

If you think about the situation rationally (not emotionally) you will know what to do.

Totally agree.

clewis

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

In our current work environment this means:

a) emigrating
b) doing an internship
c) hoping an employer will give you a chance



If you think about the situation rationally (not emotionally) you will know what to do.

Yup it's very clear what they should do.......emigrate. There isn't much point in working for free, regardless of how great the experience you're apparently lucky to get is, if there are no jobs afterwards in which to use this experience. So even if you are going to do an unpaid internship, you're probably better off doing it in the country in which you're emigrating to, at least then you'll have work-experience in that country on your CV.

Of course six months experience is better than no experience. That isn't what people are arguing about...have you ever heard anyone complaining that the FAS schemes are terrible as they allow graduates/unemployed people to get experience? The problem with them is that employers are using them as a way to get free work instead of paying an entry level wage, when many could afford it. Unemployed people are desperate for the chance to get experience, of course they are, and it's some employers who exploit that by making them work for free to get it. I've no problem with someone being offered a worthwhile internship where someone gets a chance to see how a job is done for a few months, what is wrong though is employers taking advantage of the unemployed and using them for free labour. If employers can get people for free, then why on earth would they pay them. And of course it has the handy side-effect of making the unemployment figures appear better so it's great for the politicans as well.

Mr. Loverman

chillywilly wrote: »

No offense but did you ever question your management/training skills? It should not take you 2 years to train an employee to a good standard and if the employee is not good after two years surely your management intuition would tell you to let them go?

How do you let someone go after two years?

In Ireland it is nearly impossible to get rid of someone unless they have done something terrible.

I work in IT. Graduates tend not to be very useful until they fully understand our software which takes quite a while...