Janice asks: Can you provide me with information on Teaching English in the middle east? I am looking at Dubai and to teach english as a forgien in language schools to adults (TEFL/TESL). I am looking for any information such as qualifications, living conditions, names of schools, what kind of compensation packages to expect etc. Thanks!
In answer:
My sister did this post University - great fun, great travel, but think about it as well paid travel over averagely paid work.
For Brit's - and many non-Brit's - the main provider of recognised qualifications is the British Council. You will need a recognised TESL/TEFL (Teach English as a Secondary/Foreign Language) qualification to become a teacher at a BC or other nationally recognised school, but a combination of both is then a passport to work where ever you want to. Japan should be your ultimate goal, where the rates of pay are very good - you will need a minimum of two years experience
The biggest problem in TESL/TEFL programs is recognition - the qualification is non-regulated, so hence authority of approval is key to employment opportunity. Research schools who provide either a BC and other body recognised certified qualification (normally a Trinity College TESOL Certificate in most of the world); or in North America a program certified under the Cambridge University CELTA Program or the North American University Certificate Programs.
If you don't get a TEFL/TESL, then you are into the private/in-country level of schools, and that's tough work - not well paid, not well supported. Leave well alone.
For approved schools in a particular country, contact either the British Council directly, or the in-country British, Canadian or USA embassies.
Good Luck!
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Friday, 15 August 2008
Monday, 11 August 2008
Drugs - part of society, but not part of employment?
I read this story this morning with some horror. Not only does it show how the financial barriers to access drugs are becoming lower - 20p a hit is around the same price as a cigarette; plus the tragic loss of life. It also shows how "accepted and normal" the whole drug taking culture has become amongst the young: this woman had taken it as far as a mail-order business.
When I worked with Dow Chemicals in the 1990's, the worlds second largest chemical company, there was a standard form you had to sign even as a contractor when visiting any of their sites, be they production locations or offices. Effectively it said in the interests of Health and Safety, you could as a visitor be taken aside at any point and tested for drugs, or be ejected from site for no apparent reason at any point, and may be banned for life. Having agreed to always be accompanied by a safety trained Dow employee, it also said that if the site blew up, you accepted it wasn't necessarily their fault, but you could elect to leave an address where your remains when they became accessible could be sent. I didn't have a problem signing the form, as I was clean of drugs, never drank before going onsite, and had signed similar but less dramatic forms when entering sites for both BP, Shell and Unilever. The form came in a five page copy pack, and you got one of the copies as a co-signatory, and on one occasion my father - who was the addressed person my remains were to be sent to - happened to see his name on the copy and read it. After gulping a bit at legalise, he asked "is this legal, and necessary?"
As a contractor/visitor, it was freely your choice to enter these sites, and if you disagreed with these rules you were free to say no - and subsequently not do business with them. However, as an employee, do you have to abide by the same rules; and as an employer, when is it reasonable to ask employees to accept testing for drugs?
Lets take the employer first. The biggest leverage for drug testing is pre-employment - its one of the reasons that pre-employment medical screening is increasing. However, should a trace test prove positive for something, where does it become reasonable to refuse employment? This is not a legal commentary, and as legislation and case law changes continually, it is always recommended that you take advice on such matters from a suitably qualified HR lawyer. But, in summary, in the case of the young lady above, GBL is a legal drug - and hence it would seem over zealous to stop employment in such cases; however, if large traces of alchol were found, and the job required skilled machine operation or driving, a reasonable no employment case could be constructed. Illegal drugs are a different case, and even if your normal work doesn't involve chemical handling, a heavy cocaine user would seem a brave choice. However, in all positive cases whether the element found be legal or illegal, my personal feeling is to offer the candidate a second chance - that way, if they know they are a regular user, most likely they will withdraw their application over forcing you as the employer to send them a legal "no thanks because" letter.
What about employees in employment? Once past the trial period, then the case has to be handled via the disciplinary procedure. Whatever the outcome, it should be pointed out that most charities which support the rehabilitation and recovery of both drug takers and alcohol abusers, supported by many employers groups, can show that in the cases where employers provide support systems to aid employee recovery that previously good employees after recovery return to be great employee's. So, its not always a case of sack them being the best or most economic answer.
In the case of the employee or candidate applicant, be aware that many more employers are applying compulsory pre-employment medical screening. If you take drugs or like to party on alcohol - lets be honest, when you are young who doesn't drink excessively at times; then I suggest that if you are planning a period of job seeking that you lay totally off the drugs and keep the alcohol consumption down for at least a month before your first interview. If you want a mental check level, then ask yourself could you legally drive a car at this moment - that's the level a modern trace element tester can test for, over a six month history period. The potential employer should make you aware of their application and employment process, and every modern application process will have either a compulsory or optional "at our discretion, we may ask for your medical records or for you to attend a medical check" clause in the application document. If you have existing medical conditions, then do yourself a favour and state them - once you have put them on the application form, you can't be excluded from the applications process under the Disability Discrimination laws
Now, lets say like 99% of people, you pass the employment process and are employed. But, like most you suffer some form of incident, and happen to start over em-biding on drugs or alcohol. Unfortunately, this de-gradates your performance, and your boss notices, and asks for a meeting where he suggests you take a company sponsored drugs test - what can you do? Firstly, unless its a Health and Safety matter in the care and undertaking of your job - in which case, often medical checks are a regular and routine/periodic matter - ask them to put the request in writing. Take that letter to an employment solicitor, and ask for advice - please, be totally honest with your legal representative, they can help you. Normally you will be asked subsequently by the HR Department to a formal interview, where legally you can ask a friend to attend with you - make that your legal representative. You may not be able to keep your job, but you may be able to exit with a relatively clean reference on your performance up to the incident; or may be able to negotiate a period of suspension where by your problem can be address through an agreed and employer monitored program.
Drugs are personally not my thing, but when employers are faced with a shortage or skilled talent and more competition for good people, an acceptance of modern drug culture and an adult address of usage in both applicants and employee's can bring about a more enthused and encompassing group culture if problems are tackled sympathetically. Employees but particularly applicants should be aware of modern processes and procedures with regards employment, ceasing their drug taking and monitoring their alcohol intake during the employment process - its your life, your career and hence your choice: but if you really want that job, you now know the price.
When I worked with Dow Chemicals in the 1990's, the worlds second largest chemical company, there was a standard form you had to sign even as a contractor when visiting any of their sites, be they production locations or offices. Effectively it said in the interests of Health and Safety, you could as a visitor be taken aside at any point and tested for drugs, or be ejected from site for no apparent reason at any point, and may be banned for life. Having agreed to always be accompanied by a safety trained Dow employee, it also said that if the site blew up, you accepted it wasn't necessarily their fault, but you could elect to leave an address where your remains when they became accessible could be sent. I didn't have a problem signing the form, as I was clean of drugs, never drank before going onsite, and had signed similar but less dramatic forms when entering sites for both BP, Shell and Unilever. The form came in a five page copy pack, and you got one of the copies as a co-signatory, and on one occasion my father - who was the addressed person my remains were to be sent to - happened to see his name on the copy and read it. After gulping a bit at legalise, he asked "is this legal, and necessary?"
As a contractor/visitor, it was freely your choice to enter these sites, and if you disagreed with these rules you were free to say no - and subsequently not do business with them. However, as an employee, do you have to abide by the same rules; and as an employer, when is it reasonable to ask employees to accept testing for drugs?
Lets take the employer first. The biggest leverage for drug testing is pre-employment - its one of the reasons that pre-employment medical screening is increasing. However, should a trace test prove positive for something, where does it become reasonable to refuse employment? This is not a legal commentary, and as legislation and case law changes continually, it is always recommended that you take advice on such matters from a suitably qualified HR lawyer. But, in summary, in the case of the young lady above, GBL is a legal drug - and hence it would seem over zealous to stop employment in such cases; however, if large traces of alchol were found, and the job required skilled machine operation or driving, a reasonable no employment case could be constructed. Illegal drugs are a different case, and even if your normal work doesn't involve chemical handling, a heavy cocaine user would seem a brave choice. However, in all positive cases whether the element found be legal or illegal, my personal feeling is to offer the candidate a second chance - that way, if they know they are a regular user, most likely they will withdraw their application over forcing you as the employer to send them a legal "no thanks because" letter.
What about employees in employment? Once past the trial period, then the case has to be handled via the disciplinary procedure. Whatever the outcome, it should be pointed out that most charities which support the rehabilitation and recovery of both drug takers and alcohol abusers, supported by many employers groups, can show that in the cases where employers provide support systems to aid employee recovery that previously good employees after recovery return to be great employee's. So, its not always a case of sack them being the best or most economic answer.
In the case of the employee or candidate applicant, be aware that many more employers are applying compulsory pre-employment medical screening. If you take drugs or like to party on alcohol - lets be honest, when you are young who doesn't drink excessively at times; then I suggest that if you are planning a period of job seeking that you lay totally off the drugs and keep the alcohol consumption down for at least a month before your first interview. If you want a mental check level, then ask yourself could you legally drive a car at this moment - that's the level a modern trace element tester can test for, over a six month history period. The potential employer should make you aware of their application and employment process, and every modern application process will have either a compulsory or optional "at our discretion, we may ask for your medical records or for you to attend a medical check" clause in the application document. If you have existing medical conditions, then do yourself a favour and state them - once you have put them on the application form, you can't be excluded from the applications process under the Disability Discrimination laws
Now, lets say like 99% of people, you pass the employment process and are employed. But, like most you suffer some form of incident, and happen to start over em-biding on drugs or alcohol. Unfortunately, this de-gradates your performance, and your boss notices, and asks for a meeting where he suggests you take a company sponsored drugs test - what can you do? Firstly, unless its a Health and Safety matter in the care and undertaking of your job - in which case, often medical checks are a regular and routine/periodic matter - ask them to put the request in writing. Take that letter to an employment solicitor, and ask for advice - please, be totally honest with your legal representative, they can help you. Normally you will be asked subsequently by the HR Department to a formal interview, where legally you can ask a friend to attend with you - make that your legal representative. You may not be able to keep your job, but you may be able to exit with a relatively clean reference on your performance up to the incident; or may be able to negotiate a period of suspension where by your problem can be address through an agreed and employer monitored program.
Drugs are personally not my thing, but when employers are faced with a shortage or skilled talent and more competition for good people, an acceptance of modern drug culture and an adult address of usage in both applicants and employee's can bring about a more enthused and encompassing group culture if problems are tackled sympathetically. Employees but particularly applicants should be aware of modern processes and procedures with regards employment, ceasing their drug taking and monitoring their alcohol intake during the employment process - its your life, your career and hence your choice: but if you really want that job, you now know the price.
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Advice on entering field of Program Management?
Daffyd asks: I currently run a Project Management Office and everntually would like to move into full-scale Program Management or into a Senior Project Officer role. Can anyone, particularly recruiters who recruit for these types of positions, give me any advice on
1) the best way to leverage my skills and talents, and
2) training, courses, certifications to take or get
to improve my chances of landing such a position?
In answer:
Modern careers are based on a balance of....
- Certified skills
- Relevant experience
There is also a lot of evidence that modern employers are basing their recruiting choices on niching and pinnacling. As pressures mount on modern industry, they want the right skills/experience and the top person to minimise commercial risk.
Project or Program management is now a classical "err towards the certificates" career, and is often derived from another career choice before hand - ie: telcoms engineers becoming telco PM's, construction engineers becoming construction PM's, etc. There are also sub-niches to those main markets, and its resultantly an easy career to get "niched" into both employment - and unemployment!
I would hence choose to first certify as a PM with one of the main bodies, and also gain a Prince2 qualification - the basics in the PM world. After a few years (by say mid-30's, or latest mid 40's) I would then consider undertaking an MBA and/or a finance certificate qualification. As you get older, if you choose a technology based market or sub-niche, the technology you know will get replaced and you stand a greater chance of unemployment: the MBA and finance qualifications recognise your wider skills.
Good luck - PM is a great career choice, and is one of the still developing professional career choices which you can't see going out of fashion in one or two generations.
1) the best way to leverage my skills and talents, and
2) training, courses, certifications to take or get
to improve my chances of landing such a position?
In answer:
Modern careers are based on a balance of....
- Certified skills
- Relevant experience
There is also a lot of evidence that modern employers are basing their recruiting choices on niching and pinnacling. As pressures mount on modern industry, they want the right skills/experience and the top person to minimise commercial risk.
Project or Program management is now a classical "err towards the certificates" career, and is often derived from another career choice before hand - ie: telcoms engineers becoming telco PM's, construction engineers becoming construction PM's, etc. There are also sub-niches to those main markets, and its resultantly an easy career to get "niched" into both employment - and unemployment!
I would hence choose to first certify as a PM with one of the main bodies, and also gain a Prince2 qualification - the basics in the PM world. After a few years (by say mid-30's, or latest mid 40's) I would then consider undertaking an MBA and/or a finance certificate qualification. As you get older, if you choose a technology based market or sub-niche, the technology you know will get replaced and you stand a greater chance of unemployment: the MBA and finance qualifications recognise your wider skills.
Good luck - PM is a great career choice, and is one of the still developing professional career choices which you can't see going out of fashion in one or two generations.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Should I speak to the recruiter who called me?
Margie asks: A recruiter contacted me by phone, and I figured, why not have a phone interview even though I'm not actively looking. It's been over a decade since I've been in this position. Does anyone have any advice for when you meet with a recruiter? Do they charge you if they find a job and you're interested (or actually change jobs due to their contacting you)? What kind of questions are they likely to ask? Thanks for your advice.
In answer:
Yes, why not - plus you could get a free career review and an view on what's out there/how much you could be paid.
The format's pretty standard (you, your skills, your ambitions):
1. A review of your employment history.
2. A review of non-work related (volunteer, etc) history that is applicable.
3. A review of the geographic area you want to look in.
4. A review of the industry you're interested in.
5. A review of the role you are looking for (which does not necessarily have to be associated to your past experience, though your skill-base needs to transfer easily).
6. A review of your salary expectations, and other 'perk' expectations.
From the above, a lot of dynamic questions can arise, but this is usually the starting point for any discussions with a recruiter.
The cost to you in a western environment should be free - it usually is the hiring company that pays; while engagement fee's payable by candidate are quite common in Eastern cultures. The payment plan can differ in several ways, but the majority of recruiters work on behalf of the hiring company to hire talent, and is thus why they compensate a recruiter for hired individuals.
However, one caution - once you are one their dBase, its hard to get removed. And often, some new recruitment agents are paid to collect CV/Resume's to build the companies portfolio of candidates. The key engagement questions for you are:
(A) how did you get my details (get as specific and hard nosed on this as you want - legally you can in Europe about any cold call)
(B) is there any cost to me for this service; if not, how do you get renumerated?
(C) is there a specific post you are seeking to fulfill; if not, why approach me?
(D) can you confirm that if I wish my details to be removed from your dBase and systems at any point, I can do so and that you will fully comply?
(E) please confirm the above in writing on your companies letterhead, with a list of suggested meeting dates
Good Luck!
In answer:
Yes, why not - plus you could get a free career review and an view on what's out there/how much you could be paid.
The format's pretty standard (you, your skills, your ambitions):
1. A review of your employment history.
2. A review of non-work related (volunteer, etc) history that is applicable.
3. A review of the geographic area you want to look in.
4. A review of the industry you're interested in.
5. A review of the role you are looking for (which does not necessarily have to be associated to your past experience, though your skill-base needs to transfer easily).
6. A review of your salary expectations, and other 'perk' expectations.
From the above, a lot of dynamic questions can arise, but this is usually the starting point for any discussions with a recruiter.
The cost to you in a western environment should be free - it usually is the hiring company that pays; while engagement fee's payable by candidate are quite common in Eastern cultures. The payment plan can differ in several ways, but the majority of recruiters work on behalf of the hiring company to hire talent, and is thus why they compensate a recruiter for hired individuals.
However, one caution - once you are one their dBase, its hard to get removed. And often, some new recruitment agents are paid to collect CV/Resume's to build the companies portfolio of candidates. The key engagement questions for you are:
(A) how did you get my details (get as specific and hard nosed on this as you want - legally you can in Europe about any cold call)
(B) is there any cost to me for this service; if not, how do you get renumerated?
(C) is there a specific post you are seeking to fulfill; if not, why approach me?
(D) can you confirm that if I wish my details to be removed from your dBase and systems at any point, I can do so and that you will fully comply?
(E) please confirm the above in writing on your companies letterhead, with a list of suggested meeting dates
Good Luck!
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Who is the customer in recruitment?
Simon asks: Drucker always asked "Who is your customer?". When undertaking strategic planning within a recruitment agency environment do you believe the customer is the candidate or the client? Can strategic planning be successful when you consider both groups as customers when they often have opposing needs/wants?
In answer:
- In pure theory: both the recruiting organisation and the candidate
- In practice: the HR manager, the recruiting manager, and the candidate
- In reality: there would be no "customer" if there was no need to fill a vacancy, so the hiring company
In the old days, recruiters considered both their dBase of candidates and their client contacts value able assets. In these days of the internet and domination of the market with the likes of Monster et al, the pure "fill the vacancy fast" ethic has meant the customer is where the money is. This is often - always true in low wage sectors, reduces as you go up the pay scale - to the detriment of candidates, who now feel like paper pawns pushed across a recruiters desk.
The new internet world has empowered the employer as a customer, but I think in many real ways for most it has made the candidate a virtual and disposable commodity. Its not a way I would wish to be treated personally as a candidate, and its something we try hard to avoid at Ajiri
In answer:
- In pure theory: both the recruiting organisation and the candidate
- In practice: the HR manager, the recruiting manager, and the candidate
- In reality: there would be no "customer" if there was no need to fill a vacancy, so the hiring company
In the old days, recruiters considered both their dBase of candidates and their client contacts value able assets. In these days of the internet and domination of the market with the likes of Monster et al, the pure "fill the vacancy fast" ethic has meant the customer is where the money is. This is often - always true in low wage sectors, reduces as you go up the pay scale - to the detriment of candidates, who now feel like paper pawns pushed across a recruiters desk.
The new internet world has empowered the employer as a customer, but I think in many real ways for most it has made the candidate a virtual and disposable commodity. Its not a way I would wish to be treated personally as a candidate, and its something we try hard to avoid at Ajiri
Is it OK to lie on a resume to make yourself sound LESS qualified?
Randy asks: The problem I keep running into is that I keep getting told that I am overqualified for the positions I put in for. Is it permissable to lie on the resume and make yourself sound less qualified, maybe even leaving jobs off that would make you sound too professional? I hate even asking this, but I've been out of work too long to really care, I just want to get back to work. I was laid off almost a full year ago, and still cannot find anything. I have started applying to positions well below my experience in an effort just to get back to work. I probably should have moved out of the Austin area when I still had the funds to do so, as I am getting feedback that the military background on my resume may be causing an issue for me in this town. Right now, starting over at a low-level position looks like the only option, and I am going through several different recruiters as well in an effort to secure a position. Just so that nobody thinks I'm being too selective, my count on jobs applied to since my layoff is approximately 1000. Everything from Director level positions to night security guard at a hotel. Obviously, overqualification was not the issue on the Director position, but on many of the others, yes. I have tried to make it clear in interviews that I am not looking for something to tide me over, or something to do while I am looking for another job, but I guess they have been burned too many times in the past to take me at my word.
In answer:
The answer to the basic question is NO - its a definite no to adding experience or qualifications, but selective focusing on experience relevant to the post being applied for is allowed: for instance, that's what a skills focus CV/Resume does.
Secondly, don't under estimate and hence under sell yourself. Eventually, you'll get bored and move on with a lower skilled post - much quicker than you think. Find something which fits you.
And that brings me to the third point - there's something not right here to not have found a position after all those applications, either in how you see yourself, or the approach you are taking: the recruiters you have engaged should have spotted that. I see this myself with many who have been out of work for a while, and in most its just a case of a 1hour chat to get them back on track.
Hence, rather than adjusting your resume, I think its worth engaging some outside resources, who can look at you and your skills to give you a better focus and approach. There are many services available for ex-military personnel, and also from the educational establishments you have attended - often for free, always at lower cost. You could also look at professional coaches, and recruitment agencies and head hunters who provide career management services - effectively a review of you, your career, your skills and what the market needs.
Don't give up Randy - your persistence is highly admirable and employable. And don't believe all these stories of credit crunch and no jobs - the credit induced froth has been been knocked off the top of many markets, but people still retire or have life changes which create new openings. Well focused people who know what they are and what they want are still short resources employers want to hire.
Good Luck - and if I can help you any further, please: just ask!
In answer:
The answer to the basic question is NO - its a definite no to adding experience or qualifications, but selective focusing on experience relevant to the post being applied for is allowed: for instance, that's what a skills focus CV/Resume does.
Secondly, don't under estimate and hence under sell yourself. Eventually, you'll get bored and move on with a lower skilled post - much quicker than you think. Find something which fits you.
And that brings me to the third point - there's something not right here to not have found a position after all those applications, either in how you see yourself, or the approach you are taking: the recruiters you have engaged should have spotted that. I see this myself with many who have been out of work for a while, and in most its just a case of a 1hour chat to get them back on track.
Hence, rather than adjusting your resume, I think its worth engaging some outside resources, who can look at you and your skills to give you a better focus and approach. There are many services available for ex-military personnel, and also from the educational establishments you have attended - often for free, always at lower cost. You could also look at professional coaches, and recruitment agencies and head hunters who provide career management services - effectively a review of you, your career, your skills and what the market needs.
Don't give up Randy - your persistence is highly admirable and employable. And don't believe all these stories of credit crunch and no jobs - the credit induced froth has been been knocked off the top of many markets, but people still retire or have life changes which create new openings. Well focused people who know what they are and what they want are still short resources employers want to hire.
Good Luck - and if I can help you any further, please: just ask!
Monday, 28 July 2008
Second interview with the COO
Troy asks: I'm meeting with COO as part of a hiring process - they are not the final decision maker but provide decision input -- suggestions on approach to the interview?
I'm a candidate for a position in which the hiring manager reports to the Chief Operating Officer (COO). While the hiring manager makes the final decision, the COO provides decision input. To that end, I'll be meeting the COO soon and would like help on a few things:
- What kind of questions should I ask the COO?
- What questions should I avoid?
- What are some business topics that would resonate with the COO specifically?
In Answer:
Don't think for a second this guy cannot squash you being hired. Treat the COO as the decision maker - he is higher on the food chain and his input is really a recommendation to the hiring manager!
If you actually want to get hired, instead of to play interview Q & A games, you only have to remember one thing and remember it throughout your meeting: this meeting is NOT about you. It's about the people who are doing the hiring and their problem. They HAVE a problem they cannot solve with their current staff and are now forced to bring someone in from the outside who they think can solve it for them. And since you've gotten this far, it's obvious they believe that person could easily be you. So now your meeting becomes a blind date where the sole purpose of getting together is to see if the there's enough personal chemistry to start forming some sort of a relationship. Your goal of this meeting, then, is to get the COO ("Mr. Bigg") to like you. The goal, and the way you do that is very simple: you get him talking and keeping him talking about whatever he wants to talk about for as long as long as he wants to talk about it.
The way to begin this (after the niceties) is by asking a question or making a statement based upon your knowledge of the company and its situation (the problem you're being hired to solve), then shutting up. These questions should be based upon your research and knowledge about the company and industry,
Results are the province of the COO - determine what point of pain your employment addresses and be prepared to discuss what you are going to do to deliver results in your new role. The goal? Have him speak more than you!
Study the business (read the annual report, and its website), its market and competitors. Find something in the operations or finances of the company you are interviewing with and ask something "I notice you have 12% lower cost of operations than you next closest competitor and 30% less than the number 3 company. Tell me how you did it..."
When you focus the meeting on Mr. Bigg, you will turn a tense interrogation between a supplicant job seeker and an omnipotent employer into a pleasant conversation between two peers.
I'm a candidate for a position in which the hiring manager reports to the Chief Operating Officer (COO). While the hiring manager makes the final decision, the COO provides decision input. To that end, I'll be meeting the COO soon and would like help on a few things:
- What kind of questions should I ask the COO?
- What questions should I avoid?
- What are some business topics that would resonate with the COO specifically?
In Answer:
Don't think for a second this guy cannot squash you being hired. Treat the COO as the decision maker - he is higher on the food chain and his input is really a recommendation to the hiring manager!
If you actually want to get hired, instead of to play interview Q & A games, you only have to remember one thing and remember it throughout your meeting: this meeting is NOT about you. It's about the people who are doing the hiring and their problem. They HAVE a problem they cannot solve with their current staff and are now forced to bring someone in from the outside who they think can solve it for them. And since you've gotten this far, it's obvious they believe that person could easily be you. So now your meeting becomes a blind date where the sole purpose of getting together is to see if the there's enough personal chemistry to start forming some sort of a relationship. Your goal of this meeting, then, is to get the COO ("Mr. Bigg") to like you. The goal, and the way you do that is very simple: you get him talking and keeping him talking about whatever he wants to talk about for as long as long as he wants to talk about it.
The way to begin this (after the niceties) is by asking a question or making a statement based upon your knowledge of the company and its situation (the problem you're being hired to solve), then shutting up. These questions should be based upon your research and knowledge about the company and industry,
Results are the province of the COO - determine what point of pain your employment addresses and be prepared to discuss what you are going to do to deliver results in your new role. The goal? Have him speak more than you!
Study the business (read the annual report, and its website), its market and competitors. Find something in the operations or finances of the company you are interviewing with and ask something "I notice you have 12% lower cost of operations than you next closest competitor and 30% less than the number 3 company. Tell me how you did it..."
When you focus the meeting on Mr. Bigg, you will turn a tense interrogation between a supplicant job seeker and an omnipotent employer into a pleasant conversation between two peers.
How can I create my own career path within my company?
Curtis asks: My entire career so far has been in the same industry. I chose a particular discipline to focus on, but I am discovering that my company has a limited career path for me to follow. My skills go beyond my focus discipline, but even those areas limited. I really enjoy what I do but would like to know what my future could be and to know I have options. Any suggestions on how to create my own path would be greatly appreciated!
In answer:
Everyone - particularly those in corporate employment - need a career plan: so well done for spotting the need Curtis.
I don't think the "inside one corporate" career path is that different to the self-managed career path, and it offers more opportunities - your soft side skills enable you to be liked and offered opportunity in wider markets that a self-managed career path would not. However, the downside is is that if you don't get on with someone, or the markets change and they sell/close your division, then your career path opportunities become narrow.
As with all career path management, I suggest you set a goal - and that's easiest in corporates by saying "I want so and so's job:" yes, pick an individual. Then, read about them - how did they get where they got, and why: training, experience, focus. Once you know that, approach them (Mega Corp via your boss or HR department; smaller size by approaching their assistant), and asking for a 30min meeting to discuss them and career opportunities within the organisation. Most good corporates will do that easily, its just the courage of asking. From that you may well get yourself a mentor, which is what you are really looking for.
After that, network, communicate and volunteer - you still get paid, so what's the problem; and the more you do, the more you will be asked to do and trusted.
1. Network yourself and raise your visibility: target specific people in the company who would be great to interact with and who can help you learn about the options that are there.
2. Communicate your intentions to people who can assist in your goals: I'd enlist my HR business partner (if they have them) and let them know that you are committed to the company but want to expand your knowledge beyond what you are doing now. Also -feel out your manager to see how open s/he would be in assisting you development -but keep in mind that you hold the sole responsibility for that. If you find that there are no resources in your company - perhaps you should start looking.
3. Volunteer to assist on projects outside your immediate responsibility: in today's world, all departments are short handed - so people are open for an extra set of hand. Don't let it interfere with your primary job but be flexible.
From a combination of mentor and approach, you should find a path which suits you - from that draw up an initial plan. In review of your second or third draft (with your mentor, with your HR partner), add in a few "transportable skills" should the division in which you work be sold or you meet with that career blocker - at least then your choices are widened over narrowed. This widening is often best achieved through academic qualifications - the MBA, certificates, the Harvard Exec program etc, which are all tax-deductible costs for the corporation.
Finally - I want to tell you that you are half way there just for asking the question. The thing that most corporate career people seem to say is the lack of opportunity, where as most corporate HR people would complain about the lack of ambition in most of their employees. If you are willing to create an opportunity and career with your existing employer, I think you will be amazed by the reaction. But key to all this is finding a mentor.
Good Luck - and if I can help further, please: just ask!
In answer:
Everyone - particularly those in corporate employment - need a career plan: so well done for spotting the need Curtis.
I don't think the "inside one corporate" career path is that different to the self-managed career path, and it offers more opportunities - your soft side skills enable you to be liked and offered opportunity in wider markets that a self-managed career path would not. However, the downside is is that if you don't get on with someone, or the markets change and they sell/close your division, then your career path opportunities become narrow.
As with all career path management, I suggest you set a goal - and that's easiest in corporates by saying "I want so and so's job:" yes, pick an individual. Then, read about them - how did they get where they got, and why: training, experience, focus. Once you know that, approach them (Mega Corp via your boss or HR department; smaller size by approaching their assistant), and asking for a 30min meeting to discuss them and career opportunities within the organisation. Most good corporates will do that easily, its just the courage of asking. From that you may well get yourself a mentor, which is what you are really looking for.
After that, network, communicate and volunteer - you still get paid, so what's the problem; and the more you do, the more you will be asked to do and trusted.
1. Network yourself and raise your visibility: target specific people in the company who would be great to interact with and who can help you learn about the options that are there.
2. Communicate your intentions to people who can assist in your goals: I'd enlist my HR business partner (if they have them) and let them know that you are committed to the company but want to expand your knowledge beyond what you are doing now. Also -feel out your manager to see how open s/he would be in assisting you development -but keep in mind that you hold the sole responsibility for that. If you find that there are no resources in your company - perhaps you should start looking.
3. Volunteer to assist on projects outside your immediate responsibility: in today's world, all departments are short handed - so people are open for an extra set of hand. Don't let it interfere with your primary job but be flexible.
From a combination of mentor and approach, you should find a path which suits you - from that draw up an initial plan. In review of your second or third draft (with your mentor, with your HR partner), add in a few "transportable skills" should the division in which you work be sold or you meet with that career blocker - at least then your choices are widened over narrowed. This widening is often best achieved through academic qualifications - the MBA, certificates, the Harvard Exec program etc, which are all tax-deductible costs for the corporation.
Finally - I want to tell you that you are half way there just for asking the question. The thing that most corporate career people seem to say is the lack of opportunity, where as most corporate HR people would complain about the lack of ambition in most of their employees. If you are willing to create an opportunity and career with your existing employer, I think you will be amazed by the reaction. But key to all this is finding a mentor.
Good Luck - and if I can help further, please: just ask!
Friday, 4 July 2008
How do I give someone a reference?
Often, as a recruiter, I ask candidates to provide me with references - whether the potential employer asks for them or not. The reason for this is that you get a better view of the whole candidate, over a simple interview and test approach.
In the modern world, most references are done by telephone interview, and last around 10minutes - hearing a tone of voice is better over a managed letter.
But, the thing that always amazes me is that the reference person is often more nervous than the candidate! So, here are a few tips on how to warm/be a reference for someone.
For Candidates seeking references:
First of all, candidates pick your references. I know this may sound strange, but honestly I don't want to talk to your dog walker or cycling buddy. Pick people who you have ideally worked with, or known for a long time and that you keep in touch with. Secondly, brief them - from my point of view, there's nothing worse than dumping your best friend in it, to end up with a bad reference. Thirdly, don't pick people you can't give a full briefing to - why you are looking at leaving, why you think this job is great.
For referee's:
If you are the reference point, then firstly say thank you and then: think! Say no now if you have a doubt over later. Secondly, give the candidate a set of details on which the reference taker can contact you - yes, employers do become suspicious if you give too many references. Thirdly, prepare - I often just jot a few notes down on when we meet, and the candidates history, and the date of the last time we worked together/met. Finally, you can refuse to answer any question - there is no right/wrong/have to question!
Referencing is a good way to get a view of a candidate, and as a reference point you have nothing to lose - hey, they may even offer you a job opportunity (around 15% of candidates for a recruiter come through referencing)
In the modern world, most references are done by telephone interview, and last around 10minutes - hearing a tone of voice is better over a managed letter.
But, the thing that always amazes me is that the reference person is often more nervous than the candidate! So, here are a few tips on how to warm/be a reference for someone.
For Candidates seeking references:
First of all, candidates pick your references. I know this may sound strange, but honestly I don't want to talk to your dog walker or cycling buddy. Pick people who you have ideally worked with, or known for a long time and that you keep in touch with. Secondly, brief them - from my point of view, there's nothing worse than dumping your best friend in it, to end up with a bad reference. Thirdly, don't pick people you can't give a full briefing to - why you are looking at leaving, why you think this job is great.
For referee's:
If you are the reference point, then firstly say thank you and then: think! Say no now if you have a doubt over later. Secondly, give the candidate a set of details on which the reference taker can contact you - yes, employers do become suspicious if you give too many references. Thirdly, prepare - I often just jot a few notes down on when we meet, and the candidates history, and the date of the last time we worked together/met. Finally, you can refuse to answer any question - there is no right/wrong/have to question!
Referencing is a good way to get a view of a candidate, and as a reference point you have nothing to lose - hey, they may even offer you a job opportunity (around 15% of candidates for a recruiter come through referencing)
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Is desire and passion enough? Or do employers only care about direct experience?
Robert asks: Even in the relatively new world of sustainable building and clean energy, employers consistently require extensive and focused experience in their specific fields. Particularly in a field that elicits such a strong emotional draw, why don't more employers place a higher value on passion and a desire to make a difference?
In Answer:
In the majority of markets, there are enough people who are qualified to do the job, that employers can raise the bar sufficiently and just take the cream. After that they shop for enthusiasm - it called reducing the risk of delivery
In other markets, even when skills are rare and employers find it tough filling positions, employers like to think they are getting the best beyond their competitors. Its called pride in the company
My view is that, in the area of sustainable building and clean energy, that the technology is still developing fast; and that secondly its a tough sale convincing developers to take an greatly over-regulation product which reduces their margin over a regulation product. On both counts, companies would therefore seek well educated and experienced individuals to keep their own technology moving forward and those who can explain the resultant benefits to gain more sales.
Can I guess that your question is brought about Robert by the pile of rejection letters on your own desk, from applying for such positions where you are technically under qualified? Personally, if I was you and I was WHOLLY that enthusiastic about sustainable building and clean energy (two areas, so pick the one you are most enthusiastic about - if I was neutral, I would pick buildings over energy: more of a long term career on easier financed projects), I would pick out the five top companies I really wanted to work for, and having done some research write direct to the President/CEO in a clear letter stating why I wanted to come work for them and what excited me about them/their product. I would include a focused CV/Resume, citations and letters of recommendation from both senior co-workers and customers on projects I had delivered, and may even include a short personal statement/paper on why I was so enthusiastic on this area, where I saw it going in the future, the problems and how to address them.
My only question - if you are that enthusiastic, what have you got to lose?
If you need any help, just drop me a line. I normally place at least one really enthusiastic but clearly under qualified person in that method a quarter - you just need to be enthusiastic enough.
Good Luck!
In Answer:
In the majority of markets, there are enough people who are qualified to do the job, that employers can raise the bar sufficiently and just take the cream. After that they shop for enthusiasm - it called reducing the risk of delivery
In other markets, even when skills are rare and employers find it tough filling positions, employers like to think they are getting the best beyond their competitors. Its called pride in the company
My view is that, in the area of sustainable building and clean energy, that the technology is still developing fast; and that secondly its a tough sale convincing developers to take an greatly over-regulation product which reduces their margin over a regulation product. On both counts, companies would therefore seek well educated and experienced individuals to keep their own technology moving forward and those who can explain the resultant benefits to gain more sales.
Can I guess that your question is brought about Robert by the pile of rejection letters on your own desk, from applying for such positions where you are technically under qualified? Personally, if I was you and I was WHOLLY that enthusiastic about sustainable building and clean energy (two areas, so pick the one you are most enthusiastic about - if I was neutral, I would pick buildings over energy: more of a long term career on easier financed projects), I would pick out the five top companies I really wanted to work for, and having done some research write direct to the President/CEO in a clear letter stating why I wanted to come work for them and what excited me about them/their product. I would include a focused CV/Resume, citations and letters of recommendation from both senior co-workers and customers on projects I had delivered, and may even include a short personal statement/paper on why I was so enthusiastic on this area, where I saw it going in the future, the problems and how to address them.
My only question - if you are that enthusiastic, what have you got to lose?
If you need any help, just drop me a line. I normally place at least one really enthusiastic but clearly under qualified person in that method a quarter - you just need to be enthusiastic enough.
Good Luck!
Monday, 30 June 2008
Do employers really need recruiters?
Emrah asks: Do employers really think recruiters know better who is the best choice for them, or are they actually looking for someone to blame when choices go wrong?
In Answer:
Employers who use recruiters for EVERYTHING are probably those you don't want to work for - low wages, high turnover, poor staff relations: they need a PR company more than a recruiter!
Employers who use recruiters for specialist staff and positions, use them for developing new divisions and as part of a development strategy which includes both internal and externally sourced new blood are those to work for.
The continual tension will always be there between recruiters and HR departments - after dealing with months of sick leave, absent employees and accidents, the odd bit of proving your worth and having some fun on a recruitment exercise must be great for most modern HR professionals. The modern internet tools also mean that's a real value add for them over a recruiter on the average position.
The best chance of finding out which type of employer you are looking at is to ask the recruiter how many similar positions they have recruited for before, and why? Unless its a new division or new blood development, and if its in the hundreds per annum - avoid!
Good recruiters use their understanding of a company, department, and/or Team to make matches for the company. Their business development, interviewing skills, and their hard work make the difference.
Here are a couple of questions that any great recruiter should be able to speak to:
1. How do you adopt your recuiting style to fit my company's needs?
2. Describe my company's culture?
3. Tell me what candidates succeed most often at my company?
4. What interviewing strategy will you employ for this position?
A greqat recruiter has thought about and can answers these questions without skipping a beat.
In Answer:
Employers who use recruiters for EVERYTHING are probably those you don't want to work for - low wages, high turnover, poor staff relations: they need a PR company more than a recruiter!
Employers who use recruiters for specialist staff and positions, use them for developing new divisions and as part of a development strategy which includes both internal and externally sourced new blood are those to work for.
The continual tension will always be there between recruiters and HR departments - after dealing with months of sick leave, absent employees and accidents, the odd bit of proving your worth and having some fun on a recruitment exercise must be great for most modern HR professionals. The modern internet tools also mean that's a real value add for them over a recruiter on the average position.
The best chance of finding out which type of employer you are looking at is to ask the recruiter how many similar positions they have recruited for before, and why? Unless its a new division or new blood development, and if its in the hundreds per annum - avoid!
Good recruiters use their understanding of a company, department, and/or Team to make matches for the company. Their business development, interviewing skills, and their hard work make the difference.
Here are a couple of questions that any great recruiter should be able to speak to:
1. How do you adopt your recuiting style to fit my company's needs?
2. Describe my company's culture?
3. Tell me what candidates succeed most often at my company?
4. What interviewing strategy will you employ for this position?
A greqat recruiter has thought about and can answers these questions without skipping a beat.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Five reasons why you don't need a recruiter…..
Many employers, particularly in these days of the well connected internet and Monster, Jobsite, etc; wonder why they need to employ a recruitment company? The answer is - you don't. It's a free market, and you just don't need to - its really your choice. So here are five reasons why employers and candidates don't need to go via a recruitment company
Employers:
1. All the CV's are on the market via the internet - true, that's the theory by about 2012. But even if that were true, only about 1/3 of the target audience who could fit your requirements will actually be on the internet advertising themselves. One third will be happily employed because they are good at what they do (but could leave if the right offer came along - problem is, they work for your competitor); and one third will be looking but not shouting about it from the internet because of the reaction from their presently happy employer
2. Everyone knows about and respects my company - your customers must do: they pay you money. Your employee's are a far more fickle bunch, and if the wage cheque didn't turn up next month, would happily join the third with their CV's on the internet! Also, do you tell your competitors everything about what you are doing? Thought not - so how do you expect to attract people to your wonderful new project that requires new skills?
3. I pay great wages - probably true, particularly if you take note of one or more of the many surveys that are regularly posted by various employment or industry organisations. But, does the size of the wage packet wholly sum up your organisation? And when you pay a better basic and have nicer offices, a better car package and include health care - over your nearest competitor - is that taken into account in those surveys?
4. I know what people fit into my organisation - yes, you wholly do: you and you alone can make that decision - it's the most important decision to be made around your business and its ability to survive. And we all know that beneath that gruff and hard business like exterior you are a really nice person. But - now, rather than selling your business to your customers, you need to sell you and your businesses future to your potential employee's - that a different sell, and a far softer one of getting to know people over a period of time. Where as, you need someone next month who will perform from day1
5. Recruiters charge huge fee's - yes, so always choose one if you must use one who specialises in your sector, is REC registered, and who's fee's are NOT wholly payable before the new employee starts, and are fully refundable if the employee leaves within a reasonable period. Mind you, if you do decide to DIY and make the wrong decision, then chances are you will have trebled the chances of the new employee leaving, and hence incurring total costs equivalent to around three times their basic wage costs.
Here are the same five concerns from the candidates position:
1. I don't want to put my CV on the internet because I don't want to upset my current and very reasonable employer
2. I don't know about that company whose advert I saw in the Sunday Newspapers/on the internet
3. The package looks reasonable, but I need to know if they cover other issues like healthcare - plus I have a holiday coming up
4. I have heard some bad things about them in the past, so not sure I will fit in there. Plus, where are they going at present?
5. Recruiters charge huge fee's and just leave you once their fee's are paid - a REC registered recruiter should negotiate for you, and check you are making the agreed targets. Hence, a reasonable question to ask any recruiter when they approach you is "And if I take the job, how will you get paid?"
Employers:
Here are the same five concerns from the candidates position:
Monday, 19 May 2008
Want that job? Don't rely on your lucky but unwashed pants.....
This survey from employment law specialists Peninsula came across my desk this morning - oh, what a laugh!
Of the 3024 workers interviewed, the survey found that......84% of respondents wear what they believe is, something lucky to get them through a job interview with 6 in 10 of these wearing lucky underwear. Additionally 73% of respondents admit to checking their horoscope immediately before an interview believing it will be an indicator of whether they get the job or not.
The top 10 lucky charms candidates take with them to a job interview were.......
Lucky Underwear (sometimes unwashed!)
Lucky Jewellery
Brooch
Lucky shoes (polished, one hopes...)
An object from Childhood, i.e. blanket/teddy
4 leaf clover
Key ring
Lucky stone
Lucky Pen/Pencil
Lucky photograph of someone i.e. boyfriend/relative
So, if you don't want to rely on lucky (but unwashed - Yuck) pants, here are some thoughts on how to get that job......
1. Luck doesn't start with your pants on the day of the interview. Employment starts with reading adverts, which results in (perceived) luck!
2. Pick jobs in which you meet the basic skills requirements, which is more true for Government posts over commercial work. NEVER LIE from this point forward in an application, to your potential future employer or yourself - NOTE: 70% of applicants do: wonder if that's the same 70% wearing unwashed "lucky" pants???
3. Read their website, and make some notes on where the company is going/what it has acheived
4. If there is a telephone number to ask questions before applying - call it! Do some preparation first, and make sure to have three questions which can't be answered by reading the advert or their website alone
5. Now, specifically adjust your CV to bring out the skills you have for that job, ie - pull certain points forward which the job asks for; if it asks for Xyears experience of Y, show you have X+ of Y+
6. Write a cover letter which shows you have those skills. Pull them out specifically as bullet points if necessary (max of three core skills)
7. Two days before your interview, prepare by re-reading the job advert, their website and your CV/Resume. Prepare five questions for them. Check your travel plans and timings - including scheduled road works - and allow an extra 30mins
8. The day before the interview, make sure your clothes are prepared and clean - Ladies: no overt cleavage showing; Gents - clean shirt and tie, and polish those shoes. Re-check those travel plans
9. On the day of the interview - shower thoroughly! Read the advert, your website notes and your CV on the way there
10. After the interview, what ever the result, ask for feedback - it makes you more prepared for the next interview, or know what they like/expect of you in post
Of the 3024 workers interviewed, the survey found that......84% of respondents wear what they believe is, something lucky to get them through a job interview with 6 in 10 of these wearing lucky underwear. Additionally 73% of respondents admit to checking their horoscope immediately before an interview believing it will be an indicator of whether they get the job or not.
The top 10 lucky charms candidates take with them to a job interview were.......
So, if you don't want to rely on lucky (but unwashed - Yuck) pants, here are some thoughts on how to get that job......
Friday, 9 May 2008
Teenage tantrums, bad bosses and dishonest colleagues = Orwellian unemployment?
What's the toughest thing about finding your next job?
The toughest thing about finding a job is finding the right job - well, yes, but those who have planned their careers never find this difficult. And those who haven't just have to accept a bit of regression occasionally
OK, well the toughest thing about getting the right job is getting past the paper sift process - no, most managed careers know where their next job is; or have the right CV, which 99% of the time get you to interview
So the toughest part of getting the job is the interview - no, that's just prepartion, and if you only did one thing then it would be to read the companies annual report, re-read the advert, and prepare at least five questions (OK, well that's three things….)
Still confused? How about the toughest thing about getting your next job, could be that you fell out with your boss when a difficult teenager; or were suspected of theft after a colleague got away with it; or after a situation in which you did nothing wrong, but after a disciplinary hearing, you concluded to resign?
Seem's a bit far fetched in these ambulance-chasing/rights for all days - but could it actually happen?
In May 2008, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live, an initiave by national employers organisation Action Against Business Crime. Initially launched in the retail sector as it was founded as a way of tracking staff suspected of acts of unproven "seepage" - other wise known as theft. Initial companies signing up include Harrods, Selfridges and recruiter Reed Managed Services.
The NSDR will allow subscriber companies to check whether candidates for jobs or existing employees have faced allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging company property or causing a loss to their employers and suppliers. Workers dismissed or those who have resigned before action was taken over these offences by subscribing companies, or whose details have been added as a result of public record; will be included on the register, regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them or not.
To many, this seems at minimum Orwelian in nature, and probably illegal - it's a database of shared staff records, with no separating walls, sharing non-convicted issues: legally, most of the database at best will technically be allegations.
TUC policy officer Hannah Reed says that while criminal activity in the workplace can never be condoned, she fears such a system is open to abuse: "The TUC is seriously concerned that this register can only lead to people being shut out from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge. Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted. The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups. The CRB already provides appropriate and properly regulated protection for employers. Under the new register, an employee may not be aware they have been blacklisted or have any right to appeal."
James Welch, the legal director of human rights group Liberty, says that he is concerned that the register does not offer sufficient redress to the falsely accused: "This scheme appears to bypass existing laws which protect employees by limiting the circumstances when information about possible criminal activity can be shared with potential employers."
How does the NSDR affect you?
As an employer: it could be all good news, but - how do you know what is written about an employee is factually correct, and could you not be sued for using information about an applicant from a previous employer they have listed on their CV but not used as a reference: oh yes, you could!
As an employee: it could be all bad news - the fact you didn't see eye to eye with an old boss could now come back and count against you. So, go and check the NSDR list of employers when it is launched, and write to administrator HiCom Business Solutions (of Red House,
Brookwood, Surrey. GU24 0BL), and ask them should any of your ex-employers are listed as users, for a copy of your personal records - under UK Data Protection, you are allowed free access to this information. Once you have your printout, or they have confirmed they have no record of you, simply address each issue - I would recommend if you find anything, take legal advice
My bet is that on launch, one of the large unions such as the shop workers union USDAW or an employee rights organization such as Liberty will go after NSDR with a large iron fist, and NSDR will be but as short lived an initiative as it is short sighted. But in the mean time, its worth checking
Still confused? How about the toughest thing about getting your next job, could be that you fell out with your boss when a difficult teenager; or were suspected of theft after a colleague got away with it; or after a situation in which you did nothing wrong, but after a disciplinary hearing, you concluded to resign?
Seem's a bit far fetched in these ambulance-chasing/rights for all days - but could it actually happen?
In May 2008, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live, an initiave by national employers organisation Action Against Business Crime. Initially launched in the retail sector as it was founded as a way of tracking staff suspected of acts of unproven "seepage" - other wise known as theft. Initial companies signing up include Harrods, Selfridges and recruiter Reed Managed Services.
The NSDR will allow subscriber companies to check whether candidates for jobs or existing employees have faced allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging company property or causing a loss to their employers and suppliers. Workers dismissed or those who have resigned before action was taken over these offences by subscribing companies, or whose details have been added as a result of public record; will be included on the register, regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them or not.
To many, this seems at minimum Orwelian in nature, and probably illegal - it's a database of shared staff records, with no separating walls, sharing non-convicted issues: legally, most of the database at best will technically be allegations.
TUC policy officer Hannah Reed says that while criminal activity in the workplace can never be condoned, she fears such a system is open to abuse: "The TUC is seriously concerned that this register can only lead to people being shut out from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge. Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted. The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups. The CRB already provides appropriate and properly regulated protection for employers. Under the new register, an employee may not be aware they have been blacklisted or have any right to appeal."
James Welch, the legal director of human rights group Liberty, says that he is concerned that the register does not offer sufficient redress to the falsely accused: "This scheme appears to bypass existing laws which protect employees by limiting the circumstances when information about possible criminal activity can be shared with potential employers."
How does the NSDR affect you?
My bet is that on launch, one of the large unions such as the shop workers union USDAW or an employee rights organization such as Liberty will go after NSDR with a large iron fist, and NSDR will be but as short lived an initiative as it is short sighted. But in the mean time, its worth checking
Friday, 1 February 2008
Why the price of washing a backside had to rise
Running an employment and recruitment agency can be a stressing job - an even more so when you are dealing with sectors in which the normal wage is the UK minimum wage: which we don't! Its been my policy since day1 of striking out on my own not to compete with what I call "Hayes like" approaches or have more turnover than is absolutely essential in the minimum wage sector. So at present, that's nothing - not one penny.
As an expanding group, we look to grow partly via inorganic purchase of other companies - and having some specific focus sectors, I have specific alerts set which land in my eMail box every morning. A few weeks ago one came in for a medical organisation (OK, we want to do doctors and nurses - that one could be of interest), so I rang the agent and got some details - yes, all Doctors and Nurses, none of those domiciliary workers who look after the home-bound: great! Anyway, Mr Seller gets a bit stroppy (there's more in that statement - buy me a beer for the full version), and eventually we have a phone call where it becomes quickly apparent that: the company doesn't do many doctors and nurses; that 95% of group turnover is in the minimum wage market; and the conversation confirms that its a sector I don't want to deal with! At one point he comments: "You ought to buy this business - I've bought a one million pounds worth of property from this business in three years, and have no mortgage on it. Once you get these thicko's pushing mops and washing backsides for you, you've got them slaving for you for life." (that one went back to the agent)
Yesterday, the UK Home Secretary Jackie Smith announced during a lecture to the London School of Economics the broad plan for a new system for assessing immigration and issuing of work visa's to the UK. In summary, its based on the existing Australian system (which was based on the excellent Canadian model), where points mean entry to the UK or work visa's. Now, this is great for us as a country, but also key to me - we are about to start bringing in Indian Chefs to the UK, and had targeted a minimum of 3 and 4star chefs (and latterly hotel managers), for what is a sector short of skills in the UK. In agreement with my business partner in this sector, we agreed to exclude the bottle washers and waiters, and have as standard a test for English capability.
So what did the Jackie Smith announce yesterday? Points for skills based on sector shortage, previous employment, family and cultural ties to the UK (you get more points for being a citizen of a Commonwealth country), and points for English speaking capability - plus, a minimum wage of UKS7.02/hr: great, all systems go, just need to see the details..... (Conclusion: 100days to launch, civil service to review - so we should get them around a day before launch: situation normal!)
Hmm - knew there would be a problem. So today, I read an article from BBC Wales which says in summary: "We in the care sector had a problem when the minimum wage came in - now we have an even bigger issue with UKS7.02. We can't care for the elderly at that level, and it badly effects Filipino's."
Here's my thoughts:
Do we really run such a dire economy that only we Brit's should only benefit from good jobs and working conditions?
Are other countries in that dire a situation, that they are happy sending their people to the fourth richest economy to benefit from the opportunity which is looking after the elderly and infirm, including the development opportunity duty of washing backsides?
Do we really care that little about our elderly and infirm, that a culture which is based on using low paid foreign workers is the only solution?
Send them home - not only for their own good, but for ours and for the need to wake up and care for our own most vulnerable people ourselves. Then we might actually care about them - it is after all called a care sector.
As an expanding group, we look to grow partly via inorganic purchase of other companies - and having some specific focus sectors, I have specific alerts set which land in my eMail box every morning. A few weeks ago one came in for a medical organisation (OK, we want to do doctors and nurses - that one could be of interest), so I rang the agent and got some details - yes, all Doctors and Nurses, none of those domiciliary workers who look after the home-bound: great! Anyway, Mr Seller gets a bit stroppy (there's more in that statement - buy me a beer for the full version), and eventually we have a phone call where it becomes quickly apparent that: the company doesn't do many doctors and nurses; that 95% of group turnover is in the minimum wage market; and the conversation confirms that its a sector I don't want to deal with! At one point he comments: "You ought to buy this business - I've bought a one million pounds worth of property from this business in three years, and have no mortgage on it. Once you get these thicko's pushing mops and washing backsides for you, you've got them slaving for you for life." (that one went back to the agent)
Yesterday, the UK Home Secretary Jackie Smith announced during a lecture to the London School of Economics the broad plan for a new system for assessing immigration and issuing of work visa's to the UK. In summary, its based on the existing Australian system (which was based on the excellent Canadian model), where points mean entry to the UK or work visa's. Now, this is great for us as a country, but also key to me - we are about to start bringing in Indian Chefs to the UK, and had targeted a minimum of 3 and 4star chefs (and latterly hotel managers), for what is a sector short of skills in the UK. In agreement with my business partner in this sector, we agreed to exclude the bottle washers and waiters, and have as standard a test for English capability.
So what did the Jackie Smith announce yesterday? Points for skills based on sector shortage, previous employment, family and cultural ties to the UK (you get more points for being a citizen of a Commonwealth country), and points for English speaking capability - plus, a minimum wage of UKS7.02/hr: great, all systems go, just need to see the details..... (Conclusion: 100days to launch, civil service to review - so we should get them around a day before launch: situation normal!)
Hmm - knew there would be a problem. So today, I read an article from BBC Wales which says in summary: "We in the care sector had a problem when the minimum wage came in - now we have an even bigger issue with UKS7.02. We can't care for the elderly at that level, and it badly effects Filipino's."
Here's my thoughts:
Send them home - not only for their own good, but for ours and for the need to wake up and care for our own most vulnerable people ourselves. Then we might actually care about them - it is after all called a care sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
