1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Why we can't get a job

Discussion in 'Jobseekers' started by scienceteacha, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    Ah but thats three repeats under the same conditions, since every interview has a different set of variables; eg; interviewing panel, other candidates, school ethos etc then this doesn't apply.
    You have no reason to "beat yourself up " about it.
    Since every interview is going to be different its very unlikely that you can judge your performance on the basis of how many you have before you get offered a position.

     
  2. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    If I was on a selection panel I would be thinking; isn't the older candidate (sadly that would be me these days) a more stable and reliable choice then the younger one. The younger candidate is likely to have more distractions in their life ie; out on the town during the week or injuring themselves in sporting activities whilst the older one is more likely to be safely at home with a cup of Ovaltine?[​IMG]
    Or am I just basing things on my own wayward youth and today's 22 year old is far more sensible (if a tad dull)?[​IMG]
     
  3. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    I've posted at length at the problems of having the dual disadvantages of age and disability and have been hated on by many on these forums who feel I am just embittered. The government has done extensive commissioning and it is proven that people from the following groups; over 40s, parents, disabled, BME, gay, ex convicts etc have a harder time in gaining employment and a harder time of maintaining employment. It is proven that if you combine age with the gender issue of having a child it increases your chances of unemployment. The more disdvantages you have i..e being over 40, disabled, BME, a parent , gay, an ex convict the more difficulties. Having one is bad enough, two is asking for trouble, three......


    Although you may be from one disadvantaged group or more and probably have more to offer, being young ideally under 25 or 30, able bodied and male is the best employment profile. Yes people who are in their 50s or disabled or gay get jobs, but it is harder and it's rarer that someone with 3 or more disadvantages gets employment.

    Personally if I were to employ, I would want someone who I would percieve was without any issues. Being disabled is classed as an issue i.e the disabled person may get worst and take time off ill. Being a mother is an issue, the child may get ill and the mother takes time off to look after the child. Supposing the child has a disability?! Being Gay could be an issue as the gay individual may realise they are really transgendered and ......

    SLTs have vivid imaginations and are thinking what is best i.e. meaning the safetest for their schools. They really believe they are doing what is best for all the children in their schools.
     
  4. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    Schools believe they can influence these young wayward teachers. Yes, I've seen many break a bone or two doing extreme sports but that's part of the appeal in getting a young 25 alpha male over grand dad.
     
  5. I employ a lot of people and I find your assumptions very offensive and utterly incorrect. Being a mother is not an issue, a large proportion of female employees around the world are mothers, this statement is ridiculous.

    That you state that a candidate being gay would be a problem is even more offensive to employers and homosexuals. Aside from an employees sexual preference being utterly irrelevant to their ability to do a job, how on earth would an employer know this at interview?

    The most offensive part of your post however, is this:-
    which just makes you sound like an uneducated and bigoted individual. Being gay and being transgender are two completely different things, one does not morph into the other. I can only assume that your prejudice comes from ignorance or bitterness but either way it is a very unpleasant and incorrect statement.

    If you are expressing yourself at interview like you are expressing yourself in some of your posts than i'm afraid I am not phenomenally surprised that you haven't been successful in securing a post.

    Also, just to clarify, you seem very angry about NQT's (again, a false assumption being made about them getting work because they are cheap), yet elsewhere on the forum's you express that you have just finished training.

    I peruse these forums occasionally as although the work I have to offer is not teaching, it is education based and employing teachers to do the work (occasionally from these forums) has worked well for me and them.
    Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this just another statement like gay people turning transgender?
     
  6. Young wayward teachers? Is this to say that you think young teachers are unable to behave professionally?
    Utter tosh. Different stages of our lives offer different distractions, professionals will quite simply ensure that issues within their personal lives do not impact on their work, where possible.
     
  7. I'm sorry to hear you've had such a difficult time finding work scienceteacha, I hope the tide turns for you soon.
     
  8. I think one of the issues is that you are all trying to read the selection panel and assuming that the discussions about who to employ are based on the person, e.g. age, rate of pay etc.

    A panel wants the best person for the job on offer and will look at the interview process (including micro teach etc), references, personality and reliability. I have sat on an array of employment panels and the things that you assume are running around their heads are simply not!
     
  9. anon8315

    anon8315 Established commenter

    Yes, I have to admit I was a bit [​IMG] at the "gay people realising they are really transgendered."
    As MrGove'sFanClub points out, you wouldn't KNOW someone was gay and nor would you know if someone was a mother or not - you are not required to give this information on application forms or at interview. I've never been asked if I am a parent or not - ever.
     
  10. It's ridiculous. I've currently got about 100 people on my payroll, I have no idea, nor do I care, what their sexual preference is. What matters to me is that they are doing their job, not who they may or may not be sleeping with.
    Again, I only know who of my employees are parents now that i've gotten to know them as part of my workforce. I don't know in all cases as I don't see some of them but it's irrelevant anyway. It's also none of my business, it's only if it's come into conversation or they've had to excuse themselves/take time off because of ill kids. I've never come across a large workforce that doesn't include parents (fathers, not JUST mothers). It's all regurgitated nonsense, they need no more time off than someone who has a bereavement or has an ill elderly parent. It'll be suggested that questions are asked about any ill family members next.
     
  11. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    I myself am multidisadvantaged and have attended conferences on gender in education and know a few transgendered and gay people. All I am doing is giving examples of ignorance and of reasonings behind not employing people which many SLTs have to do. It's easy talking about inclusion but the issue is always the safest option. I have a disability, I understand the reasonings why many employers would not want to take me on. If I were in a position to hire, I would not want to take on someone with a disability especially as the government now does not cover all the additional funding they need and knowing that if I do not cover them myself, I may be subjected to a claim made against me for disability discrimination. Employers can not even ask what the disabilty is and have to make decisions based on not knowing what the disability is. They go through a process of guessing what it might be by looking at what special needs requests that disabled applicants makes.

    You can avoid having issues by not employing various groups of people. I know of two friends who came out and then became the subject of capability proceedings. I also know a friend who thought he was gay for many years to find out he was transgendered, which some men realise when they are older, and I have listened to them at conferences talk about zero understanding from schools. There are too many people that have what is percieved as issues. I am disabled but have NEVER taken a day off ill as a disabled teacher but I am percieved as being someone who will be off indefinitely as schools are paying £1,000s each month to teachers who are off for reasons of their disability. Teachers have one of the worst public sector sickness costs and the government is urging schools to cut down on the number of sick days staff are having and severely cutting their funding. How can schools save money? By not employing people who they percieve may be off sick all the time. Schools are attempting to be safe and make safe decisions. They already have enough employers that are disabled, mothers or with other issues and they need people who they percieve will present zero issues. Again employing someone with a criminal record may be percieved as being more likely to be someone who will commit another offence. These are ways shortlisting. If there weren't so few jobs and so many applicants, schools would have more time to think more clearly.

    I am in a position where I have to consider employing someone for my self employment and I too understand the need to look for people who present themselves has being likely to present zero issues. It is expensive to pay for maternity leaves, sickness absences etc. Schools are attempting to play it safe and of course, many disability are invisible and they tend to end up with disabled teachers who did not disclose until after they were offered a post and then they understand what issues were presented. It's hard for everyone concerned and this government's stance of not funding for inclusion does not make it easier. I have written to Miller, the Minister for Disabilities talking abou the need to take the financial liability away from employers to no avail. I would not employ a disabled person because I can not afford to pay for their sickness. I would not employ a mother because I could not afford to pay for their time off to attend their sick child nor their maternity leave for their second child. It's a completely different situation when YOU are paying out of your pocket for these costs.

    Schools are already paying money out tens of thousands annually for absences whether they be sickness, maternity leave etc. they are paying. In one of my local schools they have had 12 maternity leaves in this year alone. 12. Who is paying for all those maternity leaves and the supply cover? In another school a teacher with bipolar has been off sick for over 6 months on a downer. Who is paying for her extended sick leave i.e her salary and the supply cover?
     
  12. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    Interestingly enough I have two very close friends that are always on selection panels as they are DHs and who tell me these issues are current. I even spoke to a HT in a social environment and he told me that he personally doesn't like the idea of employing disabled people because they are more likely to be off sick. It's best to think that you do not have to make decisions based on finance but we all do. For instance, I want some walls in my home skimmed. Do I use an older workman, who has mobilty issues and may take 4 days that costs more or do I take a younger workman who does not present any mobility issues, and says he can do it in 2 days and offers less? When the shoe is on the other foot i.e. you have to decide who you are going to employ and you are liable directly for the costs, the question of how you would employ is completely different. Everybody deserves a chance but unfortunately there are not enough chances of everyone.
     
  13. anon8315

    anon8315 Established commenter

    Catbefriender, I can't coment on disabled people as I do not know enough about it. I don't know what the nature of your disability is but I sympathise if you feel it is prevening you finding a post. That must be hard.
    However, I would strongly urge you to look at the actual statistics (not "she says, he knows someone who") - teaching is CRAMMED full of women and the overwhelming majority of these are or will be mothers. I was employed this year as a 30 year old woman: I have no doubt my headteacher expects that I will go on maternity leave in the future and for all he knew, I could have been on maternity leave twice or three times already - it wasn't asked at interview because a) it had nothing to do with whether I could do the job or not and b) it's illegal.
    Again, no one would dream of asking "by the way, are you gay?" at interview. Knowing one person (out of thousands/millions) who is homosexual and then realised he was transexual does not equate that this often or even occasionally happens.
    If, as you claim, it's all about money, why would homosexuals be discriminated against? Why would they cost any more money than hetrosexual?
    As for the two people who 'came out' and were subjected with capability, I hardly think that's conclusive. They may have had a prejudiced Head, but out of the millions of schools and Heads I don't think one is indicative of them all. They might just not have been very good. They might have been in a position where their faces didn't fit (I was, once, it's miserable but it does happen.)
    Just PLEASE stop posting crazy generalisations. Because they are and some of them are offensive in the extreme.
     
  14. But that's not what you're doing, you're scaremongering about issues which don't exist and being offensive in the process. You really think that a panel of educated people looking to employ a teacher would be ignorant enough to consider someone's sexual preference an issue, and that those same people think that homosexual people turn transgender? Really? Do you think that all SLT's and HT's are idiots?
    Do you have a link to any evidence for this? I've never heard of such a case.
    And then what? You assume that from here they then run away or choose another candidate?
    A criminal record is an entirely different issue, yes, that would cause a problem, especially for anyone working with children.
    Does this include screening the health of the candidates family in case any of them get ill? No one has a crystal ball.
    What makes you think this, and what exactly is playing it safe anyway?
    You shouldn't judge all employers on your own prejudice. You yourself stated that you have never taken a day off, yet you would not employ someone who was disabled because you yourself assume that they will be sick. So basically, you are happy to break DDA legislation when it was designed to protect people who are in your position?
    Because all mothers need to take time off regularly? You really are demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Because all mothers have 2 children, or are in the process of working towards that? Again, this is just ramblings.
    No it isn't. You are being a hypocrite. You unfairly judge employers and then beat candidates with the same stick that you suppose that schools use. It's pretty disgusting.
     
  15. Unrelated incidents, unless they were working for a homophobic ar5ehole.
    Do you have any stats for this? You cannot base you knowledge about older men, homosexuals and transgender people on your survey of 1 person.
     
  16. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    Badger girl you would do well to attend gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual teachers conferences, all the unions have them plus the TUC, you would do well to attend black teachers conferences, all the unions have them plus the TUC, you would do well to attend gender teacher conferences, all the unions have them plus the TUC, you would do well to attend disabled teachers conferences, all the unions have them, plus the TUC. What on earth do they spend days talking about?

    Perhaps all these multitudes of stories of discriminations and multi discriminatioins are all in the mind and the people who say them have a 'victim complexes' and there is zero discrimination in society and which is reflected in education and the Equality Act 2010 was totally unnecessary and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a waste of public funding because ALL IS RIGHT IN THE WORLD!
     
  17. anon8315

    anon8315 Established commenter

    I thought none of them were teaching - thought they were all unemployed because no headteacher would employ them? [​IMG]
    There's a Young Teacher conference as well (I was really chuffed to be invited to that!) - the idea behind them is to meet other teachers with things in common with you, and yes, to address issues in the workplace. I fully support any teacher wanting to do that.
    Frankly, I think it's really unfair of you to claim that I think that when you know full well I post on here more or less entirely to be supportive to others. The point with the Equality Act is that some questions can't be asked - you wouldn't KNOW if someone was gay or a mother - conceded, you'd know someone was black or (in some cases) disabled. If you seriously believe that is preventing you being employed as a teacher then you need to take it up with the Headteachers concerned, I don't know, I'm not there when you're interviewed so I wouldn't know.
    I doubt going on about alpha males will stand you in good stead though to be honest.
     
  18. You have a lot of 'friends' who you can use as examples don't you? Your friends live in the 1950's, I hope you reprimanded them for being so fickle.
    Again, I hope you corrected the ar5ehole. Disabled people in my employment take no more time off than anyone else.
    Again, you are rambling and using anecdote to try and create a no brain scenario. Let's re-arrange it a little: -
    Do I use an younger workman, does not present any mobility issuesand will take 4 days that costs more or do I take an older workman who has mobility issues, and says he can do it in 2 days and offers less?
    I currently have around 100 people in my employment and over the year (if it's anything like the last 5) I will employ around another 100 casual staff for various jobs. You are telling me, through anecdote and no direct experience what happens with employment, something I do every day. You are wrong, with the exception of the criminal record.

    I have never heard anyone talk in such a negative way about employers and make up prejudices. It is 2012, not 1950, we've come a long way, I would suggest you come and join us.
     
  19. catbefriender

    catbefriender Lead commenter

    MrGovesFanClub, you will do well attending all the conferences I suggested as you are showing your ignorance of what is going on. You are unaware of the high number of discrimination claims made against schools which the former LEAs had to foot the bill at extremely high costs. When the money comes out of your pocket and the state does not subsidise the additional costs, it's best not to take risks.

    There was an article in the Daily Mail where this woman who classed herself a feminist was annoyed and frustrated that her reliable nanny of several years had become pregnant and she was filled with the anxiety of having to pay for her maternity leave, the anxiety of finding her replacement, her replacment's costs and how the nanny would cope when she returned to work as a mother i.e. how it would affect her childcare arrangements and her business. She said she felt a hypocrite and wrote the article to state she NEVER saw it from the employer's point of view and some of the comments were, 'That's why when I recruit I always go for women of a certain age.' People have their own agendas in recruitment. I have worked in recruitment in industry and there are many closed forms of recruitment that operate seemingly above board. It is a different situation when you have to pay the financial liability for equality. Equality comes with additional costs. People who discriminate do so, often for reasons of costs. If the additional costs of inclusion where funded by government such as the support needs of disabled people, that would help. But will the government change its stance? I doubt it. What are the advantages of having to pay up to £10,000 more to employ a disabled person because their special needs demands it? How are disabled candidates able to justify their additional expenses?
     
  20. anon8315

    anon8315 Established commenter

    The Daily Mail talks ***, frankly, and especially to and about women. Do not take it seriously.
    Look, you are speaking directly with one person who has told you that you are wrong, that he employs people with the 'issues' (if indeed you can call them that) you mention. In my department we have seven women: all bar one are parents, one is a lesbian and one is black and one is of Asian origin. So there's a few boxes ticked for you right away. I have a disabled brother, who cannot work just at the moment but has done in the past without any problems or prejudice - people have accommodated for him and for his needs.
    What feedback are you given when you go for interview?
     

Share This Page