Skip to main content

Up For Hire day 3

I'm sure this is getting boring now. I'm sure that I'm coming across as a right little weasel; a lazy scrounger. Well I'm equally sure that's all true. But the thing is, I have a real issue with the way the issue of unemployment and it's satellite aspects are presented in the popular, or rather populist, media. I objected strongly to that awful Fairy Jobmother programme and I'm not really seeing much better in this.
The problem I have are the messages it sends out, explicitly or implicitly. The audience is predominantly young and successful - other than the actual guests and participants the audience are all successful young entrepreneurs. Well that's great, but we can't all be businessmen, nor I believe should we. So what we get are a load of glib statements and platitudes as advice: 'you've just got to get off your arse and do it'. But that tells me nothing. Unemployment, like most social issues, is in fact complex because it affects each individual as an individual, but the systems in place simply cannot, and seemingly will not, deal with them on an individual basis. Yet people are happy to make a profit from it all. As a result people are inevitably fingered as 'lazy' or 'scroungers' because of society's media compelled need to make comparisons. 'You've just got to get off your arse...' is such a statement, it's saying 'compared to me and all the other hardworking taxpayers, you must conform to our expectations'.
But that isn't how people work. Some might benefit from that advice, other's won't. It's a crapshoot, and those that don't become increasingly isolated exacerbating the problems. The fact that society has become so conditioned by the anti-benefits message in the predominantly right wing media just makes it worse. People are now wholly intolerant of benefits that they are happy to see them work for their benefits, even though that completely undermines the social contract of work and impacts on real existing jobs - after all how many councils are going to need paid street cleaners, for instance, when they can get local scroungers to do it for them?
I could, have, and indeed will in the future, go on about this more. As an unemployed person, long term (there's no shame in this, I didn't invent the capitalist system that both thrives on and condemns people out of work, nor did i vote for it), I have never felt my needs met or supported in the arena of employment and the work experiences I've had, which have never been pandering or luxurious (cleaning and tillwork), have been equally isolating, low paid, and thankless. So with that in mind, and in the interests of examining the reality of this show, here's my writeup for day 3, same format as yesterday.
Ok we start off by talking about working overseas? Is this relevant? Today's reality tv skit features the four students working for a plush wedding planner. Their mission involves scoping a suitable venue at a profit, and then finding something to provide the 'wow factor' (that will the be ONLY time I will ever use that fucktacular phrase) for the hypothetical wedding. This involves jetting off to places like the cote d'azur, and the med. Just like we all have to when we sign on. Honestly, what is the point of this? In fact one audient pointed out that without the cameras would these people have gotten a foot in the door - same as with the jobs advertised and applied for in the Fairy Jobmother. Is it really fair for a tv show with its unreality and edits to perpetuate certain veiws about unemployment.
Among the guests: some bird from ‘stenders and a model. So, an actress and a model to discuss the reality of employment? I wonder what crap jobs they’ve done that we can all now feel good about doing. Their contributions are pretty minimal; the model expresses almost indignant surprise that the students, above, in response to their first outing in today's show, can only speak English. Fine, blame the education system, not the unemployed. The actress from Eastenders turns out to be Danielle from Jamie's Dreamschool in which she showed zero interest or aptitude as an actress, despite Simon Callow being their teacher. In fact she won a trip to an American Biosphere project for her science work. Looks like that counted for nothing (did she even go? If not, what a waste!) as she got herself an agent, spent a few quid on acting lessons (presumably - I don't watch 'stenders, it's depressing and stupid), and cashed in her TV cache. All in time to appear on this show discussing nepotism. Am I missing something? Nepotism is one of the topics for discussion by the audience of entrepreneurs.
Tonight's jobs will be provided by Virgin Media and Scottish Power; all of which are not long term contracts so I don't know what happens when they come to an end. It wasn't made clear if this was a probation period; quite the opposite in fact, but no discussion of what happens afterwards at all. I’ve already commented about how suspicious this makes me. Agan the only applicants for these jobs were kids from this show - about 4 people are shown during the footage? Certainly they are the only applicants we see. It seems the jobs were advertised on the show's website; would they have existed otherwise - much like the vacancies in the Fairy Jobmonter! I would like to know why these companies chose to use this forum and not the wider labour market or DWP (assuming they didn't). It's easy, I know, to pass judgement here, but the media format and that, as I've said, it contributes to the ongoing anti-benefits tone of the national mood, leaves me very suspicious.
Now, and completely deadpan, a member of the Thai royal family makes the claim that nepotism isn’t an issue while talking about how successful he is having 3 businesses at age 23. Yes folks, it’s all about business. The business of blood. Aint’ it great though when other entirely random people offer singular anecdotes and propagate that as some kind of golden rule. That’s great, you’ve made a go of things, but how many people struggle? Especially when you live where the action is. If you don’t, then it becomes a lot harder. When you factor in a complete lack of support, or the fact that asking for support garners nothing but the resentment of the great and the good, it becomes even harder.This is the bottom line for me: people are different in every way and one size and thus one standard does not fit all.
More tomorrow from tonight; day 4 is the final night.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

Anybody Out There?

Just so I can be sure this is being read at all and decide whether it's worth continuing, please shout out in the comments. Even if you think I'm talking barmy bollocks, it'd be helpful to know if there are people reading this and not weird bots from phishing sites or Russian hackers or some weird sentient algorithm.

Apologies if you are none of those things, but I'm considering what to do with this blog.

Thanks

ADD

Thursday today (unless time has confused me again!), the day between yesterday's appointment with The Psychologist, and signing on tomorrow. A brief oasis for me to discuss said appointment as it was a test for 'neurodiverse tendencies'. I think that's the best way of putting it; it's all a bit vague really. When I first saw The Psychologist I mentioned that I was in the process of trying to get a diagnosis for Aspergers to which she replied she could do a test that, while not an official diagnosis, could count towards one - or something. Something official anyway, though bizarrely after the test was completed (took a couple of hours) she said she wasn't trained for Aspergers specifically.

The test itself was a kind of Krypton Factor lite (sans exercise course): a mix of recall, pattern recognition, problem solving, and questionnaire. I was asked to arrange coloured blocks into a prescribed pattern, to spot what was missing from a series of pictures, to guess fr…