Social welfare office bans pyjamas for interviews

TroikaBox

hightower1 wrote: »

Yes they are. We are paying their benefits for them to put in reasonable effort into getting a job. Wearing pyjamas while in an interview is not reasonable effort (as judged by the average persons view, clearly expressed here as an example)

This primary argument only applies if choice is an element. It is not. The government has done the thinking for our people. Therefore, it makes no difference what they wear, they are still going to get those benefits through direct tax. the amount I pay is constant relative to a varying number of people both short and long term on the live register.

If their dress code does not affect the taxation levels of my pay packet, why should I care? Unless if affects my tax bracket, I don't care. You could argue this dress manner would lead to increased indirect tax, but this is offset by the fact I plan and eliminate these stealth taxes where required.

hightower1 wrote: »

If you pay PAYE you are paying for their benefits so that makes it every bit of your business.

Why, is it like I have a choice? I would pay 0 tax If I had that ability. I don't have a choice in the matter due to economic EU overlords, so I don't care either way.

Chinasea

mikemac1 wrote: »

They don't wear their bed pyjamas

They have going out pyjamas too

You don't actually believe that surely

44leto

I remember the beginning of the pyjamas zombie virus, I was with a colleague in the square in Tallagh and I noticed a few hanging about in Mc Donalds and I asked not quite believing it "are they in their pyjamas and he just shook his head and said "thats the new thing", I was amazed. But the virus has since spread.

boobar

44leto wrote: »

I remember the beginning of the pyjamas zombie virus, I was with a colleague in the square in Tallagh and I noticed a few hanging about in Mc Donalds and I asked not quite believing it "are they in their pyjamas and he just shook his head and said "thats the new thing", I was amazed. But the virus has since spread.

The zombie virus....Return of the Sleepy Head (Living Dead):)

44leto

boobar wrote: »

The zombie virus....Return of the Sleepy Head (Living Dead):)

The day of the walking nightwear.

Niles

I remember doing an Irish poem called Gealt for the Leaving, in which the titular madman takes a trip on the bus, distinguished from the rest of the passengers by wearing pyjamas... I fear the significance of his dress style would no doubt be lost on some of these people.

Perhaps "The Shape of Things to Come" would have been a more apt title for that poem.

LighterGuy

Its funny ...

I can go to a bar and get refused entry because i am not wearing shoes or a shirt etc. And thats a place that wants to rip me off with the price of alcohol and can also charge me just to bloody get in :rolleyes:

... yet. the social welfare now has a basic dress code and suddenly "thats too far" by people on here? ... even tho the social is giving people money.

I think people need to revaluate things on here.

Niles

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its funny ...

I can go to a bar and get refused entry because i am not wearing shoes or a shirt etc. And thats a place that wants to rip me off with the price of alcohol and can also charge me just to bloody get in :rolleyes:

... yet. the social welfare now has a basic dress code and suddenly "thats too far" by people on here? ... even tho the social is giving people money.

I think people need to revaluate things on here.

Agreed. I can't see why anyone would object to such a rule; it's not as though people have no other choice than to wear pyjamas, short of some bizarre sitcom-esque series of events that leads to them having no other clothing available.

Seachmall

Abi wrote: »

And you are quite settled on the notion that PJ wearing during the day is quite acceptable. Oh dear.

"Acceptable" in the sense that it's none of my business. If you had an argument that it's something people should be concerned about I'd love to hear it but so far your argument seems to be "I DON'T LIKE IT!!!11!!!1"

And I'm more surprised about your opinion that simply calling into a neighbour's house in your PJs makes you scumbag than anything else. Really?

Lighter Guy wrote:

Its funny ...

I can go to a bar and get refused entry because i am not wearing shoes or a shirt etc. And thats a place that wants to rip me off with the price of alcohol and can also charge me just to bloody get in

... yet. the social welfare now has a basic dress code and suddenly "thats too far" by people on here? ... even tho the social is giving people money.

I think people need to revaluate things on here.

A bar could require you to wear a nappy to get in, but I don't think we should believe anything else is unacceptable.

Niles

Seachmall wrote: »

Really?A bar could require you to wear a nappy to get in, but I don't think we should believe anything else is unacceptable.

Yeah but, pyjamas to an interview? Really? There has to be some standards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYuV76r6Ov0

(from 2:35)

hawkelady

Ok so we have 25 pages of text.
Can someone put their head above the parapet and say that wearing pjs to an interview, even wearing pjs outside your house is acceptable. I would love to hear from you ..
I personally think it akin to not wiping your arse after a messy dump!! Filthy filthy habit !!!!

Abi

Seachmall wrote: »

"Acceptable" in the sense that it's none of my business. If you had an argument that it's something people should be concerned about I'd love to hear it but so far your argument seems to be "I DON'T LIKE IT!!!11!!!1"

Because I don't like it?? I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of other people in this thread that would agree with me. So it's nothing to do with what I like or dislike.

And I'm more surprised about your opinion that simply calling into a neighbour's house in your PJs makes you scumbag than anything else. Really?

Yeah really. If I've ever had reason to call into a neighbour, I go with clothes on. Pretty messed up, eh?

A bar could require you to wear a nappy to get in, but I don't think we should believe anything else is unacceptable.

What the.. I don't even..

Seachmall

Abi wrote: »

Because I don't like it?? I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of other people in this thread that would agree with me. So it's nothing to do with what I like or dislike.

It has everything to do with what you like or dislike...?

44leto

Seachmall wrote: »

It has everything to do with what you like or dislike...?

What do you think off it and is it fair to say that what you like and dislike is your opinion and not necessarily in agreement with your good self.

I think the practice of wearing pajamas in public is disgusting and it shows on a level they don't give a fkuc about conventional standards in hygiene, and that is my opinion.

juan.kerr

hawkelady wrote: »

Ok so we have 25 pages of text.
Can someone put their head above the parapet and say that wearing pjs to an interview, even wearing pjs outside your house is acceptable. I would love to hear from you ..
I personally think it akin to not wiping your arse after a messy dump!! Filthy filthy habit !!!!

Hang on now. So we're cleaning our arses after a dump these days? Why didn't I get that memo?

It's very unfair when society judges people against ever changing guidelines. How are these people to know that pyjamas are unacceptable if they aren't told so?

I recommend we run a national awareness campaign to highlight the situation and if we can afford it maybe a decommissioning scheme. People could hand in their pyjamas in exchange for a new tracksuit and a bar of soap.

ShamoBuc

The notice should read " Your dole will be reduced by 10% if you turn up for an interview in pyjamas".
I'm guessing that would solve the problem sharpish.

Sunnyisland

44leto wrote: »

What do you think off it and is it fair to say that what you like and dislike is your opinion and not necessarily in agreement with your good self.

I think the practice of wearing pajamas in public is disgusting and it shows on a level they don't give a fkuc about conventional standards in hygiene, and that is my opinion.

100 %

Seachmall

44leto wrote: »

I think the practice of wearing pajamas in public is disgusting and it shows on a level they don't give a fkuc about conventional standards in hygiene, and that is my opinion.

And I don't disagree entirely with your opinion. Although I think "conventional standards" is not something you should restrict yourself to. I'm sure the comparison to sheep has been overused in this thread but that's what it brings to mind.

And as others have mentioned PJs have become mainstream fashion and many pick their PJs out in the morning like they would any other clothes, they're not necessarily sleeping in them (hence hygiene isn't really an issue).

don ramo

giant_midget wrote: »

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

hahahahaha:D:D:D:D:D

Mental Mickey

44leto wrote: »

What do you think off it and is it fair to say that what you like and dislike is your opinion and not necessarily in agreement with your good self.

I think the practice of wearing pajamas in public is disgusting and it shows on a level they don't give a fkuc about conventional standards in hygiene, and that is my opinion.

If that's how they turn up dressed to a social welfare office, do they expect to get a job interview wearing the same clothes??

Lazy, spoilt f**kers.

Abi

Seachmall wrote: »

It has everything to do with what you like or dislike...?

And most of the other posters in this thread apparently. It's nothing to do with disliking it, it's not appropriate, or acceptable. Hence, the reason why the SW office put that sign up.

Seachmall

Abi wrote: »

It's nothing to do with disliking it, it's not appropriate, or acceptable.

It has everything to do with liking or disliking it...?

Mental Mickey

Seachmall wrote: »

It has everything to do with liking or disliking it...?

So you think it's ok to wear pyjamas in public???




Meanwhile, back in the real world..............................

Abi

Seachmall wrote: »

It has everything to do with liking or disliking it...?

Annnnnd, I'm done here.

juan.kerr

Mental Mickey wrote: »

So you think it's ok to wear pyjamas in public???




Meanwhile, back in the real world..............................

Well Sash from Fair City wears them - is that 'real world' enought for you?

dxhound2005

The way to get around this is for people to wear their ordinary clothes to bed. Then in the morning just pop on your trainers and down to the dole office.

Mental Mickey

juan.kerr wrote: »

Well Sash from Fair City wears them - is that 'real world' enought for you?

:rolleyes:

Crazy Horse 6

woodoo wrote: »

The uniform of riff raff.

Seachmall

Mental Mickey wrote: »

So you think it's ok to wear pyjamas in public???

Where in my post did I suggest that?

I just think Abi's idea that because others share her opinion it's no longer just an opinion is... ridiculous.

Mental Mickey

juan.kerr wrote: »

Well Sash from Fair City wears them - is that 'real world' enought for you?

Again, I'll ask: Do you really think it's ok for people to wear pyjamas in public?

hondasam

When I get up in the morning I have a shower, get dressed in clothes. Are we to assume these people who wear pj's leave the bed, shower and get back into the pj's.
I have seen a few people wearing them in public and my thought's were fcuking tools go home and put on some clothes because you look ridiculous.

Mental Mickey

hondasam wrote: »

When I get up in the morning I have a shower, get dressed in clothes. Are we to assume these people who wear pj's leave the bed, shower and get back into the pj's.
I have seen a few people wearing them in public and my thought's were fcuking tools go home and put on some clothes because you look ridiculous.

PMSL.

ShamoBuc

juan.kerr wrote: »

Well Sash from Fair City wears them - is that 'real world' enought for you?

That's the best 'real world' example you can come up with....:D

Mental Mickey

ShamoBuc wrote: »

That's the best 'real world' example you can come up with....:D

I was thinking the exact same thing but I decided to bite my tongue.

EDIT: Mind you, look at that poster's username. Says it all really.

ShamoBuc

Mental Mickey wrote: »

I was thinking the exact same thing but I decided to bite my tongue.

EDIT: Mind you, look at that poster's username. Says it all really.

Apparently that's not allowed in AH - give it both barrells in future;)

juan.kerr

Guys, in case you missed the facetiousness of my comment re Sash from Fair City I'll spell it out for you...

I think they've actually missed an opportunity here. With all the talk of benefits being cut over time then surely they could use the whole wearing of pyjamas to interviews as a means of identifying those with no intention of ever working.

Mental Mickey

juan.kerr wrote: »

Guys, in case you missed the facetiousness of my comment re Sash from Fair City I'll spell it out for you...

I don't watch that programme, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

juan.kerr

Mental Mickey wrote: »

I don't watch that programme, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well that makes 2 of us. Where did I say this phenomenon was acceptable?

Wattle

I think we need a bit of clarification here:

Signing on is not a meeting and its not a job interview. You display your social services card and then sign a register. The whole process takes about 30 seconds max. It has absolutely no bearing on whether you get a job or not. You could sign on wearing a suit of armour or dressed as a grizzly bear.

Wattle

Wattle wrote: »

I think we need a bit of clarification here:

Signing on is not a meeting and its not a job interview. You display your social services card and then sign a register. The whole process takes about 30 seconds max. It has absolutely no bearing on whether you get a job or not. You could sign on wearing a suit of armour or dressed as a grizzly bear.

It may take 30 seconds to sign your name but what of the 45 minutes to 2 hour waiting in line.

hawkelady

Wattle wrote: »

I think we need a bit of clarification here:

Signing on is not a meeting and its not a job interview. You display your social services card and then sign a register. The whole process takes about 30 seconds max. It has absolutely no bearing on whether you get a job or not. You could sign on wearing a suit of armour or dressed as a grizzly bear.

What you said has no relevance. The fact is If you walk out your front door wearing your pjs whether it's to go to the shop for a scratch card or to read the six one news you are a scrotum sack with nay respect !!!

hondasam

Wattle wrote: »

I think we need a bit of clarification here:

Signing on is not a meeting and its not a job interview. You display your social services card and then sign a register. The whole process takes about 30 seconds max. It has absolutely no bearing on whether you get a job or not. You could sign on wearing a suit of armour or dressed as a grizzly bear.

True but if you cannot take some pride in your appearance how can you hope to impress anyone enough to give you a job.
If you cannot motivate yourself enough to shower and dress it kinda says you are lazy and uninterested.

Fear Uladh

Hmmm, I think opening a pennys beside a busy dole office would make a bit of scratch.

Offer a "pyjama discount" or summit.

Leo Dowling

hondasam wrote: »

True but if you cannot take some pride in your appearance how can you hope to impress anyone enough to give you a job.
If you cannot motivate yourself enough to shower and dress it kinda says you are lazy and uninterested.

People aren't offered jobs at the dole office. Unless they're related to someone who already works there. In that case the pyjamas wouldn't matter in the slightest.

gcgirl

The Bananas in Pyjamas are really going to revolt now

Wattle

hawkelady wrote: »

What you said has no relevance. The fact is If you walk out your front door wearing your pjs whether it's to go to the shop for a scratch card or to read the six one news you are a scrotum sack with nay respect !!!

Um yes it does have relevance. As has been said by me and other posters you do not get offered a job while signing on nor is it an interview situation.

If I have a job interview or an interview with social welfare I would dress accordingly.

I don't wear pyjamas in public. Personally I think it looks a bit stupid but I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth in outrage like some people here.

Abi

Fear Uladh wrote: »

Hmmm, I think opening a pennys beside a busy dole office would make a bit of scratch.

Offer a "pyjama discount" or summit.

PJ's and fake uggs discount. They'd make a killing :pac:

Mental Mickey

Wattle wrote: »

I think we need a bit of clarification here:

Signing on is not a meeting and its not a job interview. You display your social services card and then sign a register. The whole process takes about 30 seconds max. It has absolutely no bearing on whether you get a job or not. You could sign on wearing a suit of armour or dressed as a grizzly bear.

Doesn't matter. It's a public place, and if you turn up wearing f***ing pyjamas, it shows that you're either not interested in finding work, or you have a few screws loose.

Mental Mickey

Leo Dowling wrote: »

People aren't offered jobs at the dole office. Unless they're related to someone who already works there. In that case the pyjamas wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Read post #400 please.