"Transferable skills" - the current hyped buzz phrase

"Have you considered working in a new sector? Your skills could be a perfect fit"

This is coming up a lot lately on social media but replies show that EMPLOYERS don't think this way, because they require experience:

- "Needs employers to step out and take chances on people without experience but with enthusiasm"

- "It isn't easy even with experience. I was beyond excited to find 6 positions open at an institution in a sector I would really LOVE, asking for EXACTLY the experience I had! Although they were seasonal and low paying, I thought I would definitely embrace the struggle for a chance to get a foot in the door. I applied for all 6 "entry level, assistant, seasonal" jobs with 6 years experience in EVERY ONE of the essential criteria plus. Not one interview!"

- "I think "entry level" is a synonym for "extreme amount of experience required for very low pay"

- "Most of these courses are a nonsense, less than a weeks training is not sufficient if you are trying to switch careers. Typical government job scheme all hype no substance."

- "In my experience most people could do a wide variety of different jobs with a little on the hop training but employers all ask for proven experience, silly qualifications, and dumb interview questions." - "everyone says experience needed, must be experienced or have x amount of years experience or must have whatever qualification it's very difficult if you've been in one sector your whole career from when you left school or college. If you can't afford to retrain as, a lot of places require you to work and train on a rubbish wage"

"I would avoid hiring shy people" - Quora thread "What kind of people have the hardest time finding a job"

"I would avoid hiring shy people" is one of the lines in the last paragraph of the first currently shown to this Quora thread of "What kind of people have the hardest time finding a job".  Yet more evidence of the rewards for people with the gift of the gab!

Facebook group "Unfair Generalising of the Unemployed International"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/61708813752/

This group have their description:
I have decided to start this group because I am utterly tired of a general attitude against the unemployed and particularly welfare (ie JSA- 'Job Seekers Allowance) claimants both in the UK and around the world that ignorantly puts all concerned into one negative category usually branded as lazy or 'workshy'. This is also a response to the numerous groups set up on facebook primarily to demonise welfare claimants by encouraging negative stereotyping. Words like 'Scumbags' and 'Parasites' are frequently used as are extreme approaches to solving unemployment. I believe these groups are unnecessary, inflammatory and extremely ignorant and there should be a counter against them. I would like several things to be highlighted in relation to this subject:

1) It is unfair to treat someone with disdain and a lack of respect purely because they are unemployed. It seems sometimes the rules of polite or normal conduct to people with jobs is too often dismissed when it is revealed the person is unemployed. Too many people rush to presumptions often when they have very little information on the persons situation.

2) Unemployment and crime are two words that are too often casually moulded together, not helped by the red top press. There are plenty of cases of serious crime involving people that have normal jobs (inc. serial killers high-level fraudsters and football hooligans) and plenty of people who are unemployed or claiming welfare who do volunteer work and have never commited a crime in their lives. Furthermore the unemployed and welfare claimants have as much a right to be outraged by crime as anyone else. This also applies to the myth that only those with paid jobs are honest.

3) The idea that someone has to be in a paid job to be busy is naive at best, willfully ignorant at worst. Its very possible to keep busy without being in a paid job.

4) There are hundreds of thousands of JSA claimants in the UK- They are a widely diverse range of people with different needs, qualifications and personal situations. They have become unemployed for a range of reasons. It is therefore totally inappropriate to categorise them all together.

5) One of the widely spun myths about JSA claimants is they get something for nothing. Whilst its true that JSA claimants receive financial support from the state, in return they are required to abide by certain obligations such as making steps to find appropriate work and being present at set meetings. If these obligations aren't abided by, the claimant will loose financial support. That is hardly 'something for nothing'. Furthermore when one becomes familiar with the morally questionable unpaid work schemes they will see it is anything but free! Claimants on this scheme are forced to work for no salary whilst their fully employed workmates get a regular income. This amounts to little more than exploitation and must end. Furthermore very few claimants receive the huge amounts the tabloids imply.

6) Its very easy to say 'Get a job' but that statement (apart from obviously being rude) ignores issues like competition, driving skills and qualifications. For many claimants the situation also becomes a cycle because employers tend to give preferential treatment to those already in a job.

7) I am not naive. There are those who will abuse and manipulate the system. Criticism of these individuals is completely valid and understandable- the same criticism of everyone who happens to share their employment status is not. I am not suggesting claiming welfare is something to be proud of, but likewise it is nothing to be ashamed of, provided the claimant is making practical steps for themselves. Instead of being something that is stigmatised in todays society JSA should be recognised for what it is- necessary financial support for those with no other method to support themselves whilst trying to find an appropriate job. It would simply be wrong to leave the unemployed on their own in a civilized society. I support practical measures to crack-down on those who fraud the system- it is unfair on taxpayers and fellow claimants but the current approach is ostensibly based on collective punishment which is counterproductive and morally reprehensible. Those who are most vocal in attacking claimants seem to have nothing to say about banking bonuses. I am not saying unemployed people should be above criticism but there is a genuine atmosphere of distortion and discrimination that exists against unemployed people.

8) In conclusion the concept of this group apart from being a protest against the stigmatizing of welfare claimants is intended to demonstrate that claimants are more often than not, normal people who happen to be unemployed. These are difficult times and to discriminate against those struggling with unemployment is in my view very low.

NOTE- I will not block people with different viewpoints, however I will not tolerate the sort of abusive language used against the unemployed in other forums as one purpose of this group is to counter against that. If you are joining purely to disagree, I do ask you take all points mentioned to consideration. Any language that vilifies or slurs unemployed people will be deleted without question.

"How do conservatives and liberals view unemployed individuals differently"

Really relate to this answer on Quora.com to "How do conservatives and liberals view unemployed individuals differently". It is clearly US written but terminology is similar to the UK. "Conservative" is the name of the main, and currently governing right wing party, the US "liberal" is left although the UK "Liberal Democrat" party is slightly left of centre and not as left as the main opposition "Labour" party. The similarity of attitudes is the main element though, with the right wing view that "They're lazy or whatnot", given our system's focus on "targets" and "sanctions", even though what is often needed is the recognition of the many factors which contribute to why some people are disadvantaged in the open employment market. For Aspergers it comes back to this blog's title, everyone wanting "Communication Skills".

Provider setting someone up to fail

I have listed several articles touching on the Jobcentre and associated service providers being driven by targets and payment by results. I find this post on the National Autistic Society message board particularly troubling as the provider appeared to have deliberately set this person up to fail, pushing them into applying for jobs they weren't suitable for or qualified to do, even telling them to lie about experience, qualifications and health, just to 'get the job'. The person was, when employed, fired for not disclosing their health problems.

Work Christmas parties revisited!

It's 9 years since I posted this about a "Compulsory" Christmas party. This week I found this thread on Reddit, where the original poster asks "am I miserable/antisocial" for not wanting to go, and the link goes straight to a comment from a poster who is also autistic and admits talking in groups is extremely difficult for them. The replies mix those saying "networking is an important part of work and career" and those defending the right not to go such as "social events one attends from obligation are likely to be a pain". The job I've had in these last few years, yes there have been some meals and the dreaded "Secret Santas" but they'd understood and accepted my non-participation. With only a few working days to go before this Christmas it isn't now likely I'll be starting in a new workplace let alone dealing with whether to go to a Christmas do or not.

Universal credit adverts banned as 'misleading'

This BBC article about the Advertising Standards Agency received 44 complaints about six newspaper adverts and a web page being banned for misleading the public doesn't surprise me.