Social welfare office bans pyjamas for interviews

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

professore

Seachmall wrote: »

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

Very nice...

If you're not bothered to make any effort to even look like you're looking for a job then you're NOT legally entitled to anything.

AnonoBoy

Seachmall wrote: »

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

Very nice...

"Those shoes don't go with those trousers, no cash for you this week until you sort out your sense of style mate."

It'll be expensive to change all the signs to read:
Department of Social Protection and What Not To Wear

MagicSean

Seachmall wrote: »

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

Very nice...

It's a benefit for job seekers. If you can't even pretend to be actively seeking a job then you aren't legally entitled to anything.

Seachmall

professore wrote: »

If you're not bothered to make any effort to even look like you're looking for a job then you're NOT legally entitled to anything.

While on Job Seekers Allowance I'm entitled to it.

Are you suggesting dress code be a requirement of entitlement?

Remember, we're talking about being in public here, not interviewing for a job.

MagicSean wrote:

It's a benefit for job seekers. If you can't even pretend to be actively seeking a job then you aren't legally entitled to anything.

Surely the "pretending" part is the issue here, not the effort you put into pretending...

MagicMarker

Antomus Prime wrote: »

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

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.

dark crystal

Sorry, but anyone turning up for any sort of interview dressed in pyjamas is taking the pi$s.

Who can't be bothered to dress themselves in a top and pants to go out? Most 6 or 7 year olds can do it ffs.

The King of Moo

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.

cloptrop

Maybe they are having such a hard time being out of work they cant afford clothes.
I think the social welfare should send these people to pennys with a check for 100 euro to get something appropriate for interview. :pac:

professore

cloptrop wrote: »

Maybe they are having such a hard time being out of work they cant afford clothes.
I think the social welfare should send these people to pennys with a check for 100 euro to get something appropriate for interview. :pac:

Why bother wearing clothes at all?

Run_to_da_hills

A Tesco branch in Wales has also got an issue with pyjamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8484116.stm

Ellis Dee

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.:)

The King of Moo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A Tesco branch in Wales has also got an issue with pyjamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8484116.stm

A single mother of two going into Tesco to buy cigarettes in her pyjamas?
That story's like catnip to AH!

Antomus Prime

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!

sensibleken

suitjamas! problem solved

_feedback_

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

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.

Seachmall

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,

longhalloween

Dovies wrote: »

Eh no!! Unless you are going to the gym or sports training they aren't!!

Seachmall wrote: »

Well that's bullshit.

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

Orando Broom

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.

cloptrop

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

You really need more stuff in your life to occupy your mind if a persons choice of clothing gets you down. Maybe if it was something provocative but a tracksuit?

What colour tie should a newsreader wear?

The King of Moo

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.

Seachmall

longhalloween wrote: »

Wearing tracksuits as a standard day wear is completely scummy IMO

And you're entitled to your opinion, but if you judge people by it then that's bullshit.

I work 60 hour weeks, 70 hours if there's a hefty work load, and I wear the norm (either jeans or dress pants) during those hours. What I choose to wear in my free time (tracksuits or fatman pants) is none of your business and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make snap judgments about me based on it.

It makes you look like a twat.

MagicMarker

Antomus Prime wrote: »

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!

And a man not wearing a shirt and tie, imo, is not seeking a job and is therefore not entitled to JOB SEEKERS allowance.

We can do this back and forth all day if you want, until you finally get the point at least.

Ellis Dee

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 my point was that legislation would be needed before an individual SW office could enforce a dress code. That legislation would have to be debated in the Dáil (and Seanad) and passed, and those who passed it would then be answerable to the electorate at the next election. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been done. I hope you can grasp my essential point - that the legislation has to be enacted before any regulations or guidelines can be issued on its basis. It is not enough for some little wannabee Hitler in the public service to start demanding that people dress the way he or she wants. Ireland has come a long way since the days in the 1950s when Bishop Brown of Galway could demand that women not wear bikinis on the beach in Salthill.:rolleyes:

In fact, I hope this latest example of official Ireland trying to enforce petty diktats attracts the international publicity it deserves.

Gareth2011

Ellis Dee wrote: »

This decision is open to a legal challenge on human rights grounds and I expect the staff at that social welfare office will be required to explain on the basis of what law they issued the ban. And, no doubt, more of the taxpayers' time and money will be spent on legal proceedings. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wearing pyjamas outdoors is, in fact, slobbish and bad manners, but we are getting onto dangerous ground if we start trying to legislate for good taste and good manners, not to mention sartorial elegance.

What next? No trainers, no hijabs, no turbans ...? Will every other jumped up little bureaucrat in the country be able to go solo and arbitrarily enforce a dress code in his or her little bailiwick?:eek:

An establishment like a restaurant, hotel or club may be entitled to enforce a reasonable dress code, because no one is forced to go there, but those who go to a social welfare office have no other choice than to go there to ensure they receive their legal entitlements.:cool:

Yeah they can go get their legal entitlements but are they so LAZY they can't be bothered to pull on a pair of jeans, tracksuit bottoms, teddy bear costume and a top just to go and sign on. I doubt they are actively seeking work if they can't be bothered to get dressed just to go to sign on.

numbnutz

While I dont wear PJ's outside myself and hate seeing it, their defense(ppl who wear PJ's) is quite simple.....
When the public servants behind the otherside of the screen,glass,table,desk or whatever make an effort, cause some of them don't lets be honest,so will we!:D
(and yes I know they dont wear PJs to work)

cloptrop

Theres a girl in my welfare office with a tash, this is far more offensive than pjs

Nyan Cat

The way I see it, turning up to sign on in your jammies simply shows that are you are not taking 'actively seeking work' seriously. So while I don't agree with telling people what to wear, they would have a point in a situation like this. The pj's are a reflection of the attitude

numbnutz

ejmaztec wrote: »

They could be unemployed mattress testers in uniform.

You Legend!!....

cloptrop

Nyan Cat wrote: »

The way I see it, turning up to sign on in your jammies simply shows that are you are not taking 'actively seeking work' seriously. So while I don't agree with telling people what to wear, they would have a point in a situation like this. The pj's are a reflection of the attitude

Maybe these people are a bit depressed at the fact that the only jobs out there are taken up by people that sit around on boards.ie all day. They cant be arsed getting dressed.

Gareth2011

MagicMarker wrote: »

And a man not wearing a shirt and tie, imo, is not seeking a job and is therefore not entitled to JOB SEEKERS allowance.

We can do this back and forth all day if you want, until you finally get the point at least.

You can't compare a man not wearing a shirt and tie to someone in their PJ's. As was said they are bed attire. You don't have to wear a shirt and tie to the social welfare office or even to an interview but it sure as hell helps your chances. PJ's = bed attire and not giving a sh*t if your on social till you die. Proper clothes = actually giving a fcuk about yourself and having some respect.

Antomus Prime

MagicMarker wrote: »

And a man not wearing a shirt and tie, imo, is not seeking a job and is therefore not entitled to JOB SEEKERS allowance.

We can do this back and forth all day if you want, until you finally get the point at least.

You can go back and forth all day of you want, the point of this thread is that pj's are not suitable attire for interviews in social welfare or any scenario except sleeping!

Your shirt and tie point is fair enough if its your opinion, but i would disagree. I'm a plumber by trade and if i was going for an interview for a plumbing job I would wear suitable attire for that. I work in an office now cause theres no plumbing jobs out there and if i was going for another office job i'd wear suitable attire for that too. The point most people in here are making is that pj's are not suitable attire for any sort of meeting or interview.

The bottom line is make an effort, take off the pj's and get dressed and stop going outside looking like a knacker, weather you have the right to wear them or not in public, doing so makes you look like a knacker

Barely Hedged

Seachmall wrote: »

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

Isnt it reasonable for people who give a person a minimum of €188 a week out of their pockets to seek employment allowed to judge you on how serious you are about about securing employment

Seachmall

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Isnt it reasonable for people who give a person a minimum of €188 a week out of their pockets to seek employment allowed to judge you on how serious you are about about securing employment

My post wasn't about seeking employment.

It was about the comparison of farting in public to wearing PJs in public.

MagicMarker

Antomus Prime wrote: »

You can go back and forth all day of you want, the point of this thread is that pj's are not suitable attire for interviews in social welfare or any scenario except sleeping!

Your shirt and tie point is fair enough if its your opinion, but i would disagree. I'm a plumber by trade and if i was going for an interview for a plumbing job I would wear suitable attire for that. I work in an office now cause theres no plumbing jobs out there and if i was going for another office job i'd wear suitable attire for that too. The point most people in here are making is that pj's are not suitable attire for any sort of meeting or interview.

The bottom line is make an effort, take off the pj's and get dressed and stop going outside looking like a knacker, weather you have the right to wear them or not in public, doing so makes you look like a knacker

An interview for a job is completely different, in that case you're competing against other people to be a representative of a business for an annual salary, your appearance is an important aspect in this which is why people generally dress formally.

An interview to determine if you're eligible for the job seekers allowance is completely different, your appearance has absolutely no bearing on the final decision. What you wear to the interview is not important which is why people generally dress informally.

Whether you think it's appropriate attire is really irrelevant.

Kimbot

They are right to do it in my opinion.

Look at it this way, PJ's are classed as nightwear. You dont visit the SW at night. It shows that you fell out of bed that morning a, went to your interview and your going back home to your bed. It is lazyness pure and simple.

candy-gal1

tbh i have never seen anyone wearing pjs when they go to sign on or to interviews in the Social Welfare in the time ive been on the dole.

i would be shocked if i did really, i mean i know theres the pyjama brigade all around the place and thats bad enough to see, but ffs :eek: :mad:
Wearing them to the social welfare, or anywhere for that matter, where your getting money from to live on, are supposed to be actively looking for work and ready to start working whenever you get a job just goes to show that you really have no intention/plans/ambition to do anything with your life except be on the dole.

quietriot

It's pretty saddening that people believe it's acceptable for people to be going out in public in pajamas and in this case, to collect the money they're living off from the pocket of the taxpayer.

Yes yes, it's their "right", but I'm within my right to do a lot of outright socially unacceptable behaviour, but I don't.

Those who turn up to collect the taxpayers money in pajamas should have their payment suspended and released when they turn up looking respectable. Lazy knackers.

Seachmall

quietriot wrote: »

It's pretty saddening that people believe it's acceptable for people to be going out in public in pajamas

It's pretty saddening that people hold their opinion of what's acceptable to such an nth degree that they judge others based on it despite the fact it shouldn't concern them in the slightest.

It's a big world, there's a lot of differing opinions out there, I'd suggest you get used to it. Take your own opinions with a grain of salt because everyone else does.

quietriot

candy-gal1 wrote: »

tbh i have never seen anyone wearing pjs when they go to sign on or to interviews in the Social Welfare in the time ive been on the dole.

i would be shocked if i did really, i mean i know theres the pyjama brigade all around the place and thats bad enough to see, but ffs :eek: :mad:
Wearing them to the social welfare, or anywhere for that matter, where your getting money from to live on, are supposed to be actively looking for work and ready to start working whenever you get a job just goes to show that you really have no intention/plans/ambition to do anything with your life except be on the dole.

There's an element in our society that never want to contribute anything to anything, and are content to merely live their lives out of the pockets of other people.

During the boom times, we were at full employment, yet 4% of those able to work chose not to and sat at home claiming social welfare.

Today, there are most likely more people on the social welfare who have no intention of working than ever. Why bother going to a minimum wage job when you can sit on your arse in pajamas getting €185 per week and €400 rent allowance per month?

It is interesting to think where these people would be if the protection of their lazy, do-nothing life was removed and they were left to fend for themselves. I presume they'd let themselves fall homeless and eventually die off. Would that be a terrible thing for society? Absolutely not. Would we be condemned for letting it happen? I believe we would because for some bizarre reason, liberals want to prop up the most pathetic excuses for people in society in the name of human rights and paid for by the pockets of ordinary, decent, hard-working people.

I hope the next budget is absolutely brutal on the social welfare. The long term unemployed need to have the public support removed and let fight or fail for themselves. They're a disgrace.