Recruitment Ramblings...

Up For Hire.... Are They For Real???

2011-10-25T06:10:00.001-07:00

I spent much of last week stuck in front of the TV watching BBC3's live series, Up For Hire, which set out to tackle the growing and very real problem of youth unemployment. Set over four nights, with live shows as well as pre-filmed segments, it presented its mission of getting young people into work, showcasing real-life experiences as well as offering paid work placements through industry partners such as Greggs and The Hilton Group. It sounded promising, even interesting, so on Monday night I plonked my bum on the sofa with some Dairy Milk, and started to watch. I'd already failed miserably to answer many correct questions on either University Challenge or Only Connect, so I was quite ready to watch other people suffer instead.

Based around the work placements for 4 young unemployed people, the show arranged for Ben, Kirsty, Chris and Sasha to experience a 40-year career in the space of a week or so. Starting out on minimum wage at Crealy Adventure Park in Devon, we saw tears, tantrums and badly made burgers as our two grads, single mum and teenage unemployed lad tried to get into the swing of the work. Over the course of the four days, they progressed through to management (of LUSH stores), and then onto being MDs and CEOs of corporations such as Liberty and AOL. In between these filmed clips, we were treated to a live audience debate (my favourite was the girl told she should be prepared to move for work even though she was searching for work in London... if you can't find a job there, where is better?!) and some words of wisdom from both entrepreneurs (James Caan, Richard Reed from Innocent) and celebs (Edith Bowman, Greg James). Even the deplorable Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice many moons ago showed up to wind up the audience. Although she was actually quite sensible, much as I hate to admit it, pointing out that "Micky Mouse" degrees such as Media should be removed and that academic excellence should be the sole aim of the degree system. The audience and presenters (the somewhat out of his depth Richard Bacon and Tina "I don't have to do anything except read out comments from the website" Dahely) debated issues such as relocating to find jobs, and whether degrees are necessary. We were also treated to filmed interviews of candidates who had applied for work placements through the BBC3 website, and told which ones had been successful. In between, there were little snippets of CV and interview advice from random advisors.

You know what? It was interesting, but not earth shattering. At the end of the series, we saw all four of our young 'uns being offered jobs, three by the people who'd mentored them as MDs, and one by a contact she'd met via her placement. What I found interesting that, despite all the advice offered on CV writing, interview techniques and so on, it was good old networking that got them roles. It's not what you know, it's who you know - and most young people never get the chance to meet the types of people who can give them a leg up in the career department, which leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth. On the other hand, there were plenty of happy youngsters who had won placements for 3 or 12 months with household names such as Timpsons and Greggs, after applying through BBC3's website and acing their interviews. It does rather beg the question - why does it take the possibility of appearing on TV to push someone to apply for a minimum wage job serving cakes to customers,but hey ho, what do I know about it? Maybe the show goes to prove that young people need to reassess their expectations, and can't always get their dream job even as graduates.

As expected, the subject of self employment was brought up, as an alternative to spending months or even years searching for non existent jobs in your sector. This was pushed as a good way for young people to become employed, and obviously at a time when they have less to lose than later down the line, when mortgages and families need to be considered. What with the Young Apprentice having started over on BBC1 now, copying the new Apprentice format of winning cash towards starting a business rather than a job, maybe more young people will be looking at alternative ways of earning a living...

Although the show did address many of the problems surrounding youth unemployment, and offered solutions and advice for many, what it didn't - for me - achieve, was to explore the reasons so many young people are unmotivated and disenfranchised, and what can be done about that. It's all very well being a graduate on a work placement arranged by a TV show, and then be offered a good job on the back of that, but what about the long-term unemployed? The studio audience seemed to be made up mainly of graduates who had been out of work for a few months, and who had none of the issues affecting the long-term unemployed, disabled or disaffected youngsters from the wrong side of the tracks, and showed a pretty one-sided (read: middle-class) view of the issue.

Having said that, for all the recent graduates - and motivated non-graduates - still in the job market, the show offered a lot of useful advice and encouragement, as does the website. Check it out :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00k9c3r

For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk

Failed IT projects lead to big business failures...

2011-08-25T05:26:00.002-07:00

I read an interesting article from Computer Weekly the other day, claiming that "failed IT projects demolish big businesses and executive careers". According to researchers from Oxford University, senior executives are losing jobs and businesses are collapsing due to unfinished, or failed, projects. With IT projects estimated as 20% more likely to run out of control than other projects, with 1 in 6 increasing their average budget/ cost by 200%, this is a real worry for businesses. More complex projects can become unpredictable, with this often not understood by the project managers, and both public and private sectors are suffering from these oversights. With managers focusing on average performance rather than variability, many IT projects seem doomed to fail.

Massive companies - such as Airbus, Levi-Strauss, Tollcollect and Hershey's - have all been on the brink of collapse because of out of control IT. In 2009, BT Global Services lost £1.2bn due to cost overruns on big contracts with the NHS and Reuters. In the same year, the £234m "C-Nomis" IT system for prisons failed. It was continuously assessed as proceeding to time and budget, but in fact wasn't. The National Audit Office concluded that the technical complexity had been "significantly underestimated." The system had gone the same way as many other failed government IT-based change programmes, making the same mistakes along the way. IBM were sued only last year for a failed virtual PC server project, and in 2009 HMRC sucessfully claimed over £71m in damages from ERS for the muck-up they made of the Tax Credits system, which led to thousands of families being overpaid.

So what IS it causing these large-scale failures? Is it leadership, project management, over/under estimating... or incompetence? Duncan Haughy of Projectsmart.co.uk says that "the biggest problems that projects face are inadequate definition, scope and planning." Is this true of IT? Seems like it. So how do we avoid these pitfalls? Reinder Otter of Capgemini has these rules to follow for a successful outcome.

1) Freeze scope - enforce release management rules.
2) Keep requirements SMART.
3) Involve stakeholders and users at the start.
4) Keep things simple with the right funcionality.
5) Avoid bad management - someone must have an overview at all times and manage any gaps or overlaps between suppliers, stakeholders and customers.
6) Balance quality and cost.

And another one I would add - learn from past mistakes.

I suppose that, at the end of the day, not all projects are created equal, but they can all equally fall by the wayside.

I'm just glad that my biggest IT project involves turning on my laptop and checking my emails...

For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk
For more IT news, try www.computerweekly.co.uk

2011-06-17T05:53:00.000-07:00

I spent an awful lot of autumn blogging about The Apprentice, I know, and promised I'd stop - but this new series has once again got me hooked and I can't resist. The candidates are from the same old mould as the last god-knows-how-many lots, but still as entertaining as ever. I am enjoying Jim's evil machincations, Susie's sulky pouting, and Natasha's irritating nasal whine. The tasks are, as ever, pointless and unrealistic, but serve their purpose - to provide us with an hour of amusement at the expense of the Apprentice crew as they balls up big time. We don't want them to succeed, surely - we want Lord Sugar to treat them with the contempt they deserve. The format is the same, but the reward has changed this year. Instead of winning the (frankly dubious) honour of working for Lord Sugar, the contenders get to go into business with him. Sugsie intends to show that you don't need a lot of money to start a business... by injecting £250,000 of his own cash into the venture. Interesting stuff from someone who famously declared that small businesses should stop expecting funding and go it alone. Hmmm. If he can do it, and all that...

Anyway, this got me thinking about swapping employment for self employment and running a business rather than working for the man. With jobless benefit in May increasing by 19,600 (more than double the forecast), it seems that there is not enough employment to go around. Increasingly, this means that people are choosing to start their own businesses rather than compete for the few jobs that may be out there. In the 6 months prior to April, self employment reached a record high of 4.03 million. With a million of them out of work, its the twenty-somethings leading this trend, with the number of self-employed university leavers jumping 46% in the last 6 years, and 4/10 London undergrads already having set up their own business whilst studying. Research by Enterprise UK shows that over half of 14-19 year olds aspire to run their own business.

It's not just the youngsters looking for alternative ways to make a living. We have the "mumtrepreneurs", the stay-at-home mums setting up and running successful businesses from home, which fit in with their kids as well as making them a nice was of cash. Marla Nelson from Coventry, for example, set up her own marketing consultancy last year after being made redundant. The over-50s are also increasingly going it alone, with more of them than ever becoming self employed or starting a business, often with the help of PRIME, who are linked to Age UK and offer support and advice. A4E, based in Yorkshire but operating nationwide, provide redundant and unemployed people with training and support, and last year helped 2,000 people into self employment. With the recession leaving people out of work or unhappy with work, many workers disillusioned with their jobs have decided that they prefer to be their own boss. And they've been kick starting the economy ever since. With David Cameron hailing the next decade as "the age of the entrepreneur", and laucnhing the new Enterprise Allowance to help the unemployed into business, this may just be a taste of things to come.

I can see why BBC have changed the objective of The Apprentice - going into business is what young people (and us older people!) aspire to nowadays, helped in no small part by programmes such as Dragon's Den and The Apprentice. It remains to be seen how successful this new format will be, and how the winner will get on with Lord Sugar in the driving seat. As long as we get to see the "what happened next" show (my favourite part of Dragon's Den), I'll be happy. I just wonder how long the honeymoon period will last...

To find out more about Mobilus, visit us at www.mobilus.co.uk

Let's Get Britain Working!

2011-04-21T05:56:00.000-07:00

Incapacity Benefit has been in the news again today, with reports that over 80,000 people in the UK are claiming it due to alcohol or drug addiction, or obesity. A quarter of these alkies, druggies and fatties haven't worked for a decade! Obviously, the British tax payer isn't completely happy about having to foot for bill for what could be seen as, essentially, a lifestyle choice. The government has revealed plans to shake up the system and get these people back into work, rather than allowing them to remain on benefits indefinitely. Everybody claiming Incapacity Benefit will now be retested to ensure they meet the criteria to continue paying, or move onto Jobseekers Allowance and be encouraged (or forced, as some see it) to look for work. Last year, IB was replaced by Employment and Support Allowance, in which all ill and disabled people are assessed to ascertain their fitness for work. But what about these addicts and obese claimants? Can their "incapacity" indeed be classed as an illness, or are they just a drain on society? If you look at those addicted to alcohol, drugs or food, then yes - we could say they have made these choices and should be paying for their addictions out of their own pockets. But if we consider - as many do - addiction to be a form of mental illness, then they are, in fact, suffering from a disability and as such, whilst in the grip of the addiction, incapable of working. And let's face it, how easy can it be to hold down a job if you ARE an alcoholic or a drugs-user? I think obese people get less sympathy as their addiction is rarely as serious, and we feel that there is nothing stopping them from getting or keeping a job. Yet in some circumstances, manual labour, or driving for example, a person's size would preclude them from being able to do the job. There are a lack of treatment facilities in the UK to help addicts recover, and the government haven't addressed this issue yet. However, Chris Grayling (the Employment Minister) says that private and voluntary organisations have pledged £580m to treat addicts and prepare them for employment. Even so, it may be too little. Some addicts may find the pressures of work too much, and others may find it nigh on impossible to even get a job after being unemployed for years due to addiction. In today's job market, these people stand even less chance of finding employment than the general population.

In a climate where the unemployment figures stand at 2.48m, finding a job isn't easy for anyone. And women are at more of a disadvantage than men - the amount of out of work women rose in March by 14,000, where the amount of unemployed men fell by 31,000. With the rate of Jobseekers Allowance standing at a paltry £64.30 for the over 25's, it makes sense for people to get back into work post haste, although there are concerns that people on income-based Jobseekers Allowance worry about being worse off in lower-paid jobs. So what to do, and where to find these jobs? With a report by Gumtree finding that 50% of people are concerned about losing their job, the competition is fierce. Lucky for us all, then, that The Mirror has launched their "Get Britain Working" campaign. According to them, this week they have found 10,118 jobs up for grabs. Sounds impressive, huh? These include: 70 jobs with DHL; 550 graduate positions; 70 jobs with DFS; 44 at Sainsburys and 2,320 on Fish4Jobs (who The Mirror have teamed up with on this campaign, forming a "one stop job shop"). Helpful articles such as tips for young jobseekers and starting your own business are also on their website at www.mirror.co.uk/getbritainworking. Sounds good so far. In the last 5 weeks, the paper claims that it has located 284,735 jobs, including 37,00 IT jobs. Do we believe it though? Personally... no. Has The Mirror taken into account multiple postings of the same job, on different websites? Plenty of companies advertise through several channels for the same role, using boards such as Monster, Jobsite and Reed. The same goes for recruitment agencies, where one role is worked on by different companies. How many jobs on the most popular sites are repeated by a number of different agencies - often with identical wording. And a lot of the jobs found by The Mirror are in specialist areas such as IT, or social care... making them inaccessible for the majority of readers. Whilst the campaign is a good idea, I think it's a little misleading, to claim that they have found such a huge number of jobs. But good on them for giving it a go, and if it only helps a few people, then they've done their job. In this current climate, anything's better than nothing.

And as one of those lucky people still in employment, at least I can look forward to the long weekend knowing that I have (vaguely) earned it. Happy Easter!

Competency based interviews... Are they really that scary?

2011-03-25T05:40:00.000-07:00

I thought today I'd talk about something serious (for once!), and I've been looking at competency based interviews this week, so here goes...

I blogged about The Apprentice FAR too much last year, so won't bore you by rabbiting on about it any more, but it's the most farfetched form of competency based interviewing imaginable. Programmes such as this, and the new Masterchef format, rely heavily on getting candidates to prove their suitability and aptitude from the very start. In real life, we can't get candidates to sell sausages or audition in top notch restaurants to prove their worth, but we can engage them in a competency based (or situational/ behavioural) interview to see what's what.

A competency based interview is a style of interviewing often used to evaluate a candidate's competence, particularly where you may have several candidates with the same level of technical skill. Companies are using these interviews more and more as part of the selection process, as they give valuable insights into an individual's preferred style of working and help predict future behaviour. Employers can gauge how well candidates have dealt with a situation or aspect of their role, and how they may react in similar circumstances. These interviews are invaluable for recruiters... but nerve-wracking for interviewees!

Questions are usually based around qualities such as adaptibility, client focus, communication, problem solving and teamwork. Examples may be: Tell me about a time when you altered your own behavior to fit the situation; Give an example of how you provided service to a client beyond their expectations; Describe a situation in which you were a member of a team and conflict arose within the team - what did you do? These are all vital aspects of a role, and the way in which candidates have reacted gives a good idea of their suitabilty for the new role, and whether they will fit within the company culture and way of working.

It all sounds very daunting, but candidates CAN prepare for these interviews. Rehearsal can make all the difference, and should never be underestimated. Search on www.amazon.co.uk for "competency based interviews" and there are hundreds of books written on the subject, to help candidates get ready for the big event. So, how to prepare? Firstly, identify the competencies for the job, e.g. team working, project management, commercial awareness - look at the job spec! Research the company to gain and idea of their mission statement and values. Think about some of your achievements in the past and how you would categorise them. For example, how have you proven leadership skills? - by mentoring a junior member of your team, perhaps. Successfully coping with stress on the job comes under self-management. Delivering a project on time shows success in goal setting and achievement. Think of the most relevant examples that your prospective employer might be interested in, and make sure they are specific, starting clearly: What the situation was, what you did, your motivation and - critically - the outcome. Don't waffle, keep to the point, and prove your worth. These interviews can be a really useful tool for you to think about your key skills and competencies, and big yourself up a little - even if you're not successful at interview, you know what you're all about and will be ready for the next one. And good luck!

For more information and interview tips, check out www.blog.giraffejobs.co.uk

Find out more about Mobilus at www.mobilus.co.uk

Pay rises for IT workers... but what about the rest of us?

2011-02-25T04:07:00.000-08:00

According to a report in Contractor UK, pay rises are 'only a matter of time' for IT workers. Apparently, IT directors are concerned about retaining key technical staff, and this could lead to IT departments having to increase pay in 2011. Obviously, they want to hang onto key techies before they're poached by higher-paying competitors, and this is driving pay increases. Retention is a concerning issue for as many as 85% of IT directors - which is good news for contractors who can use this to drive up their daily rate. Although, according to CW Jobs and JobsAdwatch, there may be a 'slowdown in overall IT recruitment activity in the current year." However, software houses and outsourcing consultants used the month of December to add contractors to their teams, and this may be set to grow this year.

Not such good news for council workers, though - they are feeling 'betrayed' over wage freezes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, George Osborne promised that public servants on £21,000 or below would get an extra £250 a year from this April. Now, more than one million workers have been told that, in fact, they won't be receiving this increase. Employers (local authorities etc) say that a £6.5 billion funding gap is to blame, and the Treasury claims that they only meant those directly employed by the government to benefit. The unions have stepped in, with Brian Sutton of GMB saying that Mr Osborne "reneged on a promise to low paid workers." This freeze will hit home helps, social workers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, to name but a few. Sutton added that local government could have kept this promise. He went on to claim that, with inflation taken into account, this freeze adds up to a paycut for those on low wages, as 70% of council workers earn under £21,000.

Next up to fight for fairer wages are 154,000 agricultural workers across England and Wales. The union Unite told Defra that these workers deserve a decent wage to counter inflation, as well as a public holiday to commemorate Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April. Many farmers and farm workers are struggling to manage on less than the average weekly wage, due to the rising cost of fuel, food and inflation, with 1 in 4 rural families living below the poverty line. Unite say that farming needs to be seen as a professional occupation, yet farmers are struggling to recruit skilled workers. Negotiations begin in June.

So, for those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate a pay rise - what do we do if we reckon we're worth it?

Well, don't be nice to your boss - a study published last year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found this definitely doesn't get you a payrise! Those Risk-averse employees, who try to please their employers, are more likely to compromise and cave into management wishes when it comes to negotiation time. Those who never discuss salary at appraisals or interviews hardly ever get a rise. More aggressive employees earn an average of $5000 (£3200) more a year - which works out at an extra $600k (£385k) more over 40 years, based on an annual increase of under 5%. Good news for us girls - women were found to be just as competitive as men, despite earlier indications to the contrary. Those who prepare for the negotiations - who learned about their market value, did their homework on the organisation, and inquired about previous offers - are able to use more competitive strategies and get the rise they want. This was an American report, however, and whether we more modest Brits will ever be able to throw off our self deprecating modesty and demand more money is yet to be seen.

Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my negotiation skills. Alternatively, I could always just get on with the work I'm already being paid for...

Sexism and Sacking - when's a joke just a joke?

2011-02-11T06:19:00.000-08:00

There's been such a lot written about the Andy Gray and Richard Keys sexism debacle, so I won't go into the details much. For anyone who has been living on Mars for the past couple of weeks, the scallywags got into a lot of trouble when they made disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee during a private conversation after a game at Sky Sports. It all kicked off from that point, leading to Gray's dismissal and Keys' resignation.

There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?

Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?

So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?

So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.

But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?

Bogus bonuses?

2011-01-28T04:19:00.000-08:00

It's banker bonus season again, and the press is full of articles, reports and general grumbles about the whole thing. As a nation, we seem to have a huge problem with the bonuses, not in small part due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, have had to bail out some of the banks after the hideous financial crash in 2008. A survey done last year showed that 2,800 bankers received over £1 million as bonuses, and Stephen Hester (RBS Chief Executive) is in line for £2.5 million. In total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.

So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.

Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.

At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.

So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!

As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...

Older... and wiser?

2011-01-13T06:12:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's news reported the removal of the Default Retirement Age (DRA), which will be phased out between April and October this year. No longer will employers be able to force retirement at the age of 65, which is good news for older workers and the removal of what is an unacceptable, ageist practice.

Age has been in the news quite a lot recently, thanks to Miriam O'Reilly. The former presenter of Countryfile, she has just won her case of ageism against the BBC after 14 months of wrangling. Claiming she was dropped from the show in favour of younger presenters, although 68-year-old John Craven was kept on, O'Reilly presented her case for ageism and sex discrimination, the latter of which was not upheld. Prior to being removed from Countryfile after eight years as a presenter, she was asked whether it was time for botox and advised to beware of wrinkles. The BBC - already accused of ageist practices after replacing Arlene Phillips (Strictly Come Dancing) and Moira Stewart with younger models - have apologised, and said they would like to work with the freelance broadcaster in the future. They will also be paying out an undisclosed sum as compensation. Whilst O'Reilly's case has been successful, for many workers across the UK, ageism is still a cause for concern.

A report last year by the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) indicates that hundreds of thousands of mature workers face ageist attitudes from recruiters. More older people are now seeking work due to changes in the benefits system - as Incapacity Benefit is becoming Employment Support Allowance - and an estimated 750,000 more mature workers will be re-entering the job market over the next 3 years.

Although Age Discrimination laws came into effect in October 2006, and businesses were forced to review their recruitment processes, prospective candidates still feel they are discriminated against because of their age. A survey of over 50's showed that 4% felt they had been refused a job due to their age. Interestingly, even more than this - 5% - of 16-24 year olds felt that THEY had been refused a job for being too young. It seems that ageism is out there, for the young as well as the old. Young people face discrimination in work too - they often feel they aren't taken seriously and are passed over for someone more mature. It cuts both ways, it seems.

Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.

I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...

You're Hired! And that's Snow joke...

2010-12-21T03:39:00.000-08:00

Well, I can't say I was surprised to see Stella romp to victory in the grand final of The Apprentice - I think nobody was, really. I rather enjoyed the episode. Not as exciting as Saturday's Strictly final, obviously, but still a jolly good hour spent in front of the box. The fired contestants were hauled in to help, and did with a good grace and some competent work. Baggsy's absence (along with Sandeesh's, Laura's and that other woman, what's her name?) was duly noted. Could he genuinely not make it, or was he sulking? I suspect the latter. Anyhow, the alcohol creation and branding was a resounding success, for Chris as well as Stella, and I think it was Stella's performance overall that clinched her success, rather than this week's task being an influencing factor. Didn't she do well?

So we reached the end of the drawn-out recruitment process that is The Apprentice. How Lord Sugar manages to keep interested in setting dubious and improbable tasks for that long is a feat worth mentioning... although his fee probably helps. As recruiters, it was interesting to see just how the candidates acted, and performed, in their quest to land their dream job. We saw them sell, pitch, squabble, lie and create in equal measure, in order to fight off the competition and win the contest. One wonders if the winning is more important than the prize - I for one wouldn't fancy working for Lord Sugar, no matter what six figure salary he offers - and whether it has been an anti-climax for Stella now she is in the job. Although some of the tasks seem a little... well... fabricated beyond all reason, they do serve a purpose - to let us see just what the contestants are made of. To separate the boys from the men, as it were. Skills such as leadership, sales prowess, presentation, branding and commonsense were all put under the microscope for us to see and judge. That's the fun, right? Judging the bunch of them. Wasn't it great to see them fail miserably whilst we sat smugly in front of the telly, knowing that we could have done it properly? Wasn't it fab to see them fall flat on their faces and then try to brazen it out in the boardroom whilst their fellow teammates ripped them to shreds and Lord Sugar just sat there, thinking "Loser!"? Whilst there were some there that we (I) loved to hate (Melissa, Alex, Sandeesh), you can't help but admire them - at least they had the guts to take on the tasks and give it a go. Bravo, wannabes! And now it's all over, like Strictly and The X Factor, at least for another year. Maybe next year The Apprentice auditions could be televised, like The X Factor, to give us a few more laughs... I for one would love to see THAT!

Whilst all's good for Stella, for the rest of us the snow has been causing chaos. I have been lucky to be able to even get up my hill, thanks to the efforts of several chaps in our street who worked tirelessly to dig out and grit the road. So no excuses for me not to get to work! Whilst I know that there are plenty out there who genuinely can't make it into the office because of the snow, ice and travel disruption, I suspect there are plenty more who have been using it as a convenient excuse not to leave their nice warm homes. Having been dragged out of my lovely bed to do the school run anyway, it makes no odds to me to come in. Keeps me out of trouble, and anyway, I get to sit next to a wonderful little heater all day. Last time it snowed, earlier this year, there was a distinct lack of post wending its way through to me. This time, however, all the Christmas cards, parcels and (unfortunately) bills have managed to find their way through the snow - and are even arriving earlier than usual! It hasn't stopped certain companies from blaming Royal Mail for not delivering... Two department stores, when asked why items were not ready to be picked up, blamed the Royal Mail for not making deliveries. This sounds a bit suspect, especially as we all seem to be receiving our post (and parcels) as normal. Come on, big names, stop shifting the blame. It seems that someone, somewhere, isn't doing their job...

And that's all folks... I am winding down for the holidays, the kids finish school today, and I am looking forward to a nice long rest (Star Wars lego building antics aside). All that remains for me to do is to raise a glass of Urbon, wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I'll be back in 2011 for your delectation!

Bye Bye Baggsy (and Jamie and Jo)

2010-12-17T11:09:00.001-08:00

Wasn't it good? Wasn't it fine? Oh how I loved Baggsy's face in the boardroom when he realised that Lord Sugar had finally realised - weeks later than the rest of us did - that he was, as LS so charmingly put it, "full of !@$*...

There isn't really much to say about this week's instalment - I am saving everything up for the eagerly anticipated final -except that it didn't come as a surprise to anyone, I think, to see Stella up there in the top two. Chris, for me, was a proper dark horse though, pipping other previous favourites to the post in the end.

I do have to mention, though, the utterly repellent interviews (and interviewers). Who the heck interviews in such an aggressive, invasive and downright insulting way any more? These interviews couldn't be further removed from real life interviews... or at least I hope they are... I thought this type of inquisition went out with the Spanish one, but Lord Sugar's evil minions seem to revel in making candidates squirm. Although I couldn't help but chuckle when Baggs greeted Margaret by her first name and was firmly put in his place (the gutter). It's natural to be nervous of interviews, but if they really are as bad as all this, nobody would ever apply for a job! Nowadays, interviews tend to be less interrogative and more competency based, with an emphasis on the positive rather than looking for ways to call your candidate a liar or a blagger... as funny as it is to witness.

And so, I wait with baited breath for the final of what has proven to be, again, a rather enjoyable series. I particularly love the way the fired contestants get brought back in to help the finalists - with all the sour grapes they can muster. Come Sunday evening, I'm going to curled up on the sofa in my dressing gown, glass of wine in my hand, laughing my head off... because I don't really care who wins, just bring on the carnage...

2010-12-10T03:51:00.000-08:00

Well, wasn't this week's Apprentice a shocker?

Sent off to set up and run a London tour company, the remaining six contestants toddled off in their usual inimitable style to argue, negotiate and muck up their way through their day on the open-top buses.With Stuart leading Team Apollo, it was always on the cards that this one would be entertaining. Apollo decided to do a "Cockney" tour, whilst Synergy opted for a Horror tour of London. Highlights of the episode included Liz alienating a couple of jellied eel sellers by asking them to speak Cockney to their clients, Stella and Jamie's fantastic singalong sessions on their respective buses and the near punch up between Baggsy and Chris. How Christ resisted smacking Baggs the Brand in his cakehole, goodness only knows. He's a stronger man than I. The swearing that ensued from Baggsy's attempts to steal Chris's' customers was enough to make me blush (well, I may be exaggerating a BIT...), but it gave me a jolly good laugh. Things looked pretty shaky for Synergy for a while, after Chris kindly agreed to give the Tourist Centre 20% of all revenue for their assistance in selling tickets - a fact which Jo was horrifed to discover and went hell for leather trying to backtrack on the deal (being called "unprofessional" in the process) - but in the end they made the most money and walked away to victory.

With only three remaining in Apollo, obviously all of them would make it into the boardroom for the final verdict on who shouls stay and who should go - but what happened next was, to say the least, a bit of a shocker. After the usual shenanigans, slag-offs and last-minute pleas, it was the hardworking doe-eyed Liz who got the boot - for being "nothing special", according to Lord Shugs. Hmm. Everybody in the house seemed absolutely shocked to see Stuart walk back through the door, as seemingly the failure of the task had been down to him. From over-pricing the tickets, losing the bid to work with the Tourist Centre and a slanging match in the street with a member of the competition, Baggs hardly showered himself in glory. And yet, by some quirk of fate (or Lord Sugar), here he was, free to fight another day. How could this be?

It's been clear from the start that Baggsy, with his ability to talk rubbish, massive ego and utter lack of any insight, would be a favourite of the Apprentice-Master himself... why? That old chestnut - he sees himself in him. Yawn. Surely that's not a GOOD thing?! Yes, OK, Baggs has chutzpah, he promises to make Lord Sugar millions AND he is not just a one-trick pony... in fact he claims to have a whole field of the damn things. But surely this isn't enough to keep him in above other, consistently performing and hard working contestants like Liz? Let's look at the evidence - Liz has, over the previous weeks, been an excellent salesperson, broken the boardroom record for sales, and is a grafter. She shows initiative and brain power, and even in this failed task outsold Baggs by almost 100%. What has Baggs actually achieved? Antagonising suppliers, physically chasing punters down a street, trying to steal customers from his competitors, bad-mouthing everyone, showing no humility or professionalism, and spouting utter garbage about how amazing he is - which nobody believes except, sadly, Lord Sugar.

What does this teach any of us about the state of the world? That consistently delivering doesn't reap rewards? That integrity and professionalism means nothing? That bigging yourself up to within an inch of your life actually fools some people? I thought that Lord Sugar was looking for the sort of person that could be trusted to work hard, think smart, show some respect and deliver the goods. My bad. What a shame that Lord Sugar seems to hold Stuart in such regard. For all his talk about what kind of person he is looking for, at the end of the day, if someone reminds him of himself no matter how bolshie, gobby or irritiating they may be (although come to think of it, that's what makes them like him), he'll pick them to stay in at the expense of someone who could actually be an asset. There's a few double standards creeping in here too - after telling Jo she was unprofessional for trying to renege on the Tourist Centre deal, and Chris for trying to force sales of his crisps whilst in Germany the other week, suddenly Baggsy's attempt to steal Synergy's customers is overlooked. This could be a simple case of vanity hiring - when a hiring manager chooses to employ someone in their own image. I would think that an employer needs to hire someone to complement their own skillset, not replicate it. Baggs has picked up on the importance of mirroring within an interview situation, almost to the point of mimickry. Unfortunately, Lord Sugar doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that Stuart is possibly beyond redemption, no matter how he talks the talk, and is one of the mouthiest and unlikeable contestants yet. I think this is a worrying role model and a bad example to set... what's it teaching those young people watching the show? That it's ok to be nasty to other people, perform poorly and fail at tasks, as long as you know how to press the hiring manager's buttons? Typical old Lord Sugar, always looking out for someone just like himself to bring into his business empire. If he ever found his doppelganger, however, he'd surely regret the day he hired them...

The Apprentice - Negotiation, negotiation, negotiation...

2010-12-03T04:08:00.000-08:00

One of my favourite tasks of The Apprentice (who can forget Michael Sophocles and the kosher chicken fiasco of 2008?) - take a list of 10 items to find and then buy at the lowest price - was the offering of this week's episode. On the surface it sounds pretty simple, but, as we've learned from previous experience, it is a tragedy waiting to happen. Jamie, heading the boys' team, had one strategy and one strategy alone for winning this task - race around London, find the items and start by offering 30% of the asking price. Liz, managing the girls, had a more organised strategy - locate the items, plan each purchase and location, then work on the negotiation on arrival. With Jo going great guns from the beginning, and Jamie stumped on trying to find a tikka (the gold type, not the curry), it looked like the girls were off to a flying start, especially as they managed to find out what the Blue Book was long before the boys did.

Once the boys had found the items, though, they showed some remarkable negotiation skills. Jamie was extremely persuasive and wouldn't take no for an answer, whilst Chris - following his leader's mantra of "always have a story when negotiating" - came up with some inspired reasons for needing items at a good price. My favourite gem was his bargaining tool for the Blue Book, which was a convoluted lie regarding a desperate brother and his impending test for The Knowledge. Amazingly, he managed to get his discount, along with a few laughs for good measure. He lied again about a tartan loving Granny in order to get a discount on the fabric, and managed to snag a great bargain - extremely entertaining. Chris may even be the one to watch... The girls' organisational skills really paid off for them - by sourcing and ordering the kitchen worktop in advance, they saved the wasted time and effort that Jamie spent on trying to find it - and they managed to find all ten items, albeit returning slightly late and facing financial penalties. Unfortunately, Laura's miscalculations about the price of truffles (and trying to buy them from a restaurant) put the dampers on their chance of victory, and in the end it was Jamie's team (even with over £500 of penalties added on for failing to find two of the items), who walked away with the weekend in Paris.

So, what can we learn from this latest installment? Well, that it all came down to negotiation. The boys were far stronger at negotiating the best prices, regardless of their slapdash approach to resourcing the items. The girls' failure was, that although they researched the items well, they went out blind into the marketplace in terms of pricing and negotiation strategy. It was also commented on by Lord Sugar that they failed to adapt themselves to the situation and the seller - the corporate approach of deal making and handshaking doesn't suit a small independent store. Does careful planning aid negotiation? Not in this case, although it could in the right circumstances e.g. if the product and market has been identified and price checked. Negotiation is an extremely useful tool in the job market, as anyone who has had a job interview should know.

So, how should we negotiate a job offer? When do we talk salary? Well, we need to start by making sure we have used our skills as a chameleon to adapt to the environment - a skill which Liz and Stella were sadly lacking. Being able to adapt our social and communication skills to a situation is an incredibly important part of negotiation. It's not about pretending to be something we're not, just realising that different people respond to different things, and certain situations require certain handling and personality traits. The negotiation of a job offer is really important for both employer and employee, and sets the stage for a satisfactory working relationship. For the jobseeker, negotiating too hard can result in losing the opportunity, but not negotiating enough could lead to dissatisfaction if we accept a role where we feel we should and could be paid more for. If we are lucky enough to have other offers, these can be used as a starting point for salary negotiation of a new role, or alternatively as a stick to beat an existing employer with should the promotion or pay rise we feel we have earned is not forthcoming. As the boys learnt, spontaneity is also a good thing - playing by ear allows us to adapt a strategy in real time, rather than planning it all ahead and being too rigid. We also need to know our potential employer and the flexibility they may have in salary offerings - for example, a large company where salaries are set or banded for many employees are unlikely to be able to move much, whereas an SME can usually offer more flexibility in terms of benchmarking indivual salaries. What it all boils down to is, essentially, being able to use our negotiation skills in an effective and appropriate manner.

Why not take your inspiration from Chris? Just leave out the tall stories....

Crisps and Cretins

2010-11-26T04:27:00.000-08:00

God I'm hungry (and it's not quite lunchtime), which reminds me I haven't blogged yet about this week's Apprentice. The crisps task, eh? Or How To Succeed Where No Other British Crisp Manufacturer Has. Easy peasy for the boys and girls of The Apprentice, given their top-level business acumen, fantastic client management skills and all-round fabulosity (hey! A Melissa word...). Hmm. Lord Sugar has whittled the contestants down to the final eight, and if this task hasn't put them off, nothing will. So, the brief: design some new flavours of crisps, get them made, take them to Hamburg and flog them to the Germans. Okay, sounds simple enough. Unless you don't know the first thing about making crisps, which we can safely assume they didn't. Stella's team went straight in for the "Classic British" theme, coming up with roast dinner flavour and the more dodgy sounding stilton and paprika. Stilton and PAPRIKA? WHY? At least it's different, I suppose. Chris's team decided to work on traditional German flavours.... again, WHY? Surely in Germany they already HAVE German style crisps, and don't need a bunch of Brits coming over to sell them some more. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, Christopher and Jamie fell in love with a sausage and curry fast food snack, and off they went to make the crisps to match. Yuck.

Highlights of the episode included: Christopher's revelation that he hates Germany and Germans, with no reason given (or if there was it was deemed unbroadcastable), Laura's sulking and stropping (especially when told she spoke waaaay too fast) and Baggsy's sheer brilliance at being able to count to 20 in German. Something my 13 year old son can do, and HE doesn't act like he has the genius of Stephen Hawking. My son was watching with me as it happens, and he wasn't impressed. But then, he is never impressed by anyone on the show, to be honest. It was painfully obvious, really, that Stella's team was going to win. Not only were their flavours, well, edible, but they made some good pitches and got in there first. Chris's team made a MASSIVE mistake when they were offered a 9am appointment at The Marriott but Christopher and Jamie changed it to 1pm and guess what? - Stella and Joanna have already been there and walked away with a sizeable order. Didn't see THAT one coming... As Jamie would say, "the early bird catches the birm", or something like that.

Chris, panicking now he was set for the boardroom for the umpteenth time, dragged Christopher and Jamie along for the ride. I must admit, I don't like that Christopher much (the slimeball), but did feel a bit sorry for him when he was fired. Chris and Jamie managed to wriggle their respective ways out of an elbowing, whilst poor Christopher couldn't sweet talk Lord Sugar over, being told that although he was a hard grafter, he just wasn't "entrepreneurial enough". Hmm. One suspects that what Lord Sugar meant was, doesn't talk rubbish enough. It seems to be the way forward, don't you think? Although Lord S has often decried the verbose, he seems to like them, really. Maybe there's a moral in this tale, you know. Or even two. One - don't sell German crisps to Germans... they already HAVE them. Two - Hard work is all very well, but if you can't talk the talk, walking the walk ain't going to get you far. And there's a third - Counting to 20 in German does NOT make you a brainiac.

The Great Escape... and a Royal Wedding!

2010-11-19T05:42:00.000-08:00

Quel surprise, I watched The Apprentice this week. Well, watched isn't truly accurate - I was scoffing chocolate and (lots of) wine whilst it happened to be on in the background - so forgive my fuzziness...

So, Sandeesh finally got the chance to be PM, as did our perennial favourite prat, Baggsy. Would this be Sandeesh's chance to finally show Lord Sugar what she's capable of. Sadly, no. Would this be Stuart's chance to finally show us that he's not just a mouthy arrogant plonker? Sadly, no.. but for the entertainment factor, he just can't be beaten. The teams were sent to Pinewood Studios ("What? The furniture store?" asks Sandeesh....) to choose a backdrop for their next task - enticing children to fake race fake cars against said backdrop to produce dvds for their proud parents to spend a tenner on. Off to Westfield Shopping Centre next, to set up for the task and get going with the moneymaking. Long story short - Baggs irritated the hell out of everyone on his team (as well as some of the doting parents who bought the dvd, when asked to pay £12 rather than the £10 previously quoted), Sandeesh seemed to DO something this week rather than just moaning, and all the kids had a great time! I couldn't for the life of me ascertain if Mr Baggs actually did anything in the task, or just left the others to crack on with it while he ponced around flapping his big mouth - by this time I was merrily opening another bottle. Anyway, crunch time came and - to my shock - the Baggs Brand had won the profit wars by a very small margin. So, into the boardroom again for poor old Sandeesh. And this time, after wheedling her way past The Sugar twice before, she was finally sent home, the only time she did ANYTHING! Chris and Liz tore all her arguments apart, and Lord Sugar did what he seemed to be putting off all series - got rid of the huge-eyed madam. Back in the house, the victory of Sturat's team didn't seem to be resonating with happiness... nobody seemed to think he had deserved the win. Especially not Stella, his team-mate, who told him point blank that the other team should have won. Ouch. Can't wait for next week... who needs competition from the other team when your own don't even like you? Oh Baggsy, your brand isn't working for me...

Moving on, whilst Lord Sugar has been firing recruits this week, the Royal Family are hiring. Prince William and Kate Middleton have (finally) announced their engagement and a wedding is planned for spring/summer next year. How exciting! Opinions seem to be split on this - people are either 100% behind what promises to be an all-out meringue fest, or resentful that "our" tax money will be spent on the outdated principle of monarchy. Jeez, can't everyone just be happy for them? Yes, we will end up paying out for the wedding, but what a treat it will be for all the family (especially if we get the day off work/school)! I remember Charles and Di's wedding as one of the most exciting days I had when I was 5. We all sat together and watched the visual display (on the telly, obviously, we weren't invited for real) and I had my first ever taste of babycham... setting the stage for an addiction to sparkly drinks. I blame my parents. And, importantly for the economy, the royal wedding will bring additional ££££££££££££ into the country (in excess of £1billion, with £750m from tourism alone). Sales of wine and champagne are set to soar, with people celebrating in their own homes and having parties - I might have a little one of my own. Or I could just keep the champers for myself. And what better for the country in these uncertain times than something to look forward to celebrating, the marriage of our future king. Whilst it's all very exciting (at least to me!), I wouldn't fancy being that Kate Middleton. In-laws are bad enough at the best of times, but marrying into the Royal Family must be a challenge of nightmarish proportions. Look at poor old Di, she was famously unhappy with the whole bally lot of 'em. Being recruited into the Windsor clan must be almost as bad as being hired by Lord Sugar.

Maybe being fired is a great escape after all...

Hold the recycled clothes and hold your tongues...

2010-11-05T04:13:00.000-07:00

God I love The Apprentice. It makes me feel better about myself - I look like a paragon of competence next to some of these muppets. The contestants muddle their way through from task to task, messing up, moaning and bitching their way along the path to the boardroom. Mistakes pile up by the dozen, and this week was no exception.

Now, I love fashion (like most of us girls out there), so was interested to see what would happen when the teams were tasked with setting up a one day boutique in Manchester's Trafford centre. I am by no means a fashionista, but I like to think I know what makes a good outfit... unlike some of our erstwhile contenders. And I absolutely loved the sparkly, blinging party dresses that Synergy managed to blag - not surprisingly, given their enthusiasm for the clothes in comparison with Apollo's po-faced silence when confronted with the rail of beauties. So we had some WAG-ready LBDs and sequined frocks, brilliant, and brilliantly pitched for by Liz. Paloma managed to secure some "recycled" garments... clothes made out of old suits and ties, sold at extortionate prices for something that looked like a tramp had robbed a charity shop and taken a pair of scissors to fashion himself an outfit or two. Yuck.

Anyway, the shops were opened the next day, ready for some sales - proper sales, not like last week's Baby Glows and showerhead sales which all turned out to be fake, oops sorry, hypothetical. Alex (you know, the one resembling a goblin), self-proclaimed expert on the Trafford Centre geography, messed up by choosing a promotional pitch too far away from the shop, but redeemed himself by securing a short advert which was played on the big screen in the centre every fifteen minutes. The WAG dresses were flying off the shelves, Paloma and Alex were rowing about the placement of clothes rails, nobody wanted to buy the hooded waistcoats made out of old M&S suits, and Stella was sat in her boutique's window clad in a green sparkly dress, prompting Nick to compare her to an Amsterdam prozzie. Nice.

It was slightly predictable that Synergy would win the task, but impressively Apollo were only £500 behind. If only Chris had been able to sell another couple of the hideous tie dresses. And wasn't the final showdown a humdinger? Not surprisingly, Paloma dragged Alex (who she had already hinted at being to blame for the failure of the task) into the boardroom... but also Sandeesh, claiming she was overall a "weaker candidate". Interesting tactics. But ones that seemed they might work, despite Lord Sugar's initial disapporoval. It was all going so well, with Alex and Paloma snapping at each other like grouchy poodles, Paloma driving the point home that Alex failed at the pitch location task, and Alex reiterating that his advertising brainwave had more than made up for it. Paloma even told Alex that everyone else on the team found him irritating - really? Can't imagine why... now I think about it, maybe he's more like a bulldog than a goblin. Anyhoo, things were really kicking off about now, but with Paloma holding her own so well, and Lord Sugar starting to consider his point about Sandeesh being a useless waste of space, it seemed that she would live to fight (and I mean literally fight, that girl is scary) another day. And then she started laying into all and sundry, giving Alex and Sandeesh an real ear battering, and Alan just lost the plot at that point.

Paloma was fired, and it couldn't have happened to a nastier person. She made Melissa look like Mother Theresa, for God's sake. She may have had all the business savvy in the world, all the commercial experience and team leading skills, whatever ... but she hadn't learnt the most important rule of the boardroom - when to keep quiet. As Lord Sugar pointed out, she'd talked herself out of staying on. Nobody wants to work with an aggressive cow like that, after all. Poor little Alex looked like he'd faint with relief when told he was staying on, and Sandeesh had dodged the bullet again. I think it's all too easy to keep on talking when the moment has passed, and talk ourselves out of something we want, especially when we let personal opinions (Paloma's seeming hatred for Alex for example) get in the way of our ambition, intent and focus. She deserved to go, that's for sure. And the lesson learned from this? Shut up and put up, at least for the short term, if it helps you get what you want. I just wish I could get this across to my kids. I could always set an example for them, I suppose, but short of a tongue amputation, I can't see that working...

The Apprentice - Bragging, Burning Bridges and Bad Behaviour....

2010-10-29T05:26:00.000-07:00

It was a good one this week, with the gobby Melissa Cohen finally getting her comeuppance and hearing those famous dreaded words... "You're Fired!" Frankly, I thought she was so utterly horrible in last week's episode that I was hoping her team would fail so that I would have the pleasure of seeing her fired, but - somehow - she managed to grab victory and so my plans were thwarted for another seven days. Her performance this week, for a self-acclaimed pitching master, was dismal, finally leading to her departure from the show. So what did we learn about Melissa? That she liked to boast, and claim her prowess in an area that she obviously couldn't - and didn't - deliver on? Melissa learnt the hard way that she should have been able to back up her claims with action, rather than letting herself, and her team, down when it came to the crunch. One of the things to take away from this is the importance of setting expectations. If you say you can do something, whether you can or not, people will expect you to do it. If the expectation to achieve is unrealistic, you won't be meet your targets, and will disappoint those to whom you made the promise. If you set yourself, and your employer/ colleagues, realistic expectations, then you will always be able to deliver, and if you manage to exceed those targets, all the better! The thing about Melissa was that she bigged up her sales abilities so much, and had so much to prove, that when she fell flat on her face we all felt a little glow of happiness at her misfortune. Her braggishness wasn't helped any by her personality flaws, unfortunately. Volunteering to be the project manager - well, forcing her way into the position - once was enough for all of us, but she then tries to bulldoze her way into it for a second week. That girl certainly wanted to prove something, to herself as well as Lord Sugar. I would have thought that scraping through by the skin of her teeth in the bakery task would have allowed her to sit back and relax knowing she didn't have to stand in the firing line as PM again, but who knew she'd be such a glutton for punishment? Perhaps it was to gain more attention from Lord Sugar, perhaps to win back the respect of her team mates. Who knows? One thing's for sure, Melissa won't be missed by anyone in the Apprentice house, from what we've seen.

Nobody could fail to be surprised, and amused, by Melissa's parting shot in the boardroom, accusing Jamie and Stuart of ganging up on her. As she stormed out, both men followed her to say their goodbyes, only to be met with a refusal to shake hands and told that she had nothing to say to them. Sulky? Moi? It made her look BAD - childish, stroppy and petulant. If you were a potential employer, what on earth would you think after seeing THAT performance? I expect better from my 6-year old, let alone a grown "professional". Always beware of parting gestures, lest you burn your bridges, because you never know who might be watching. The same goes in other situations - watch what you say and never take it for granted that you haven't been observed. For example, people who turn up for an interview and are rude or short with the receptionist, only to discover later that they were dealing with the partner of the hiring manager, or have been watched whilst in the waiting area (I know of companies who routinely do this to observe behaviour). There are those who have made crass or inappropriate comments about a former boss or colleague, only to find that they are an acquaintance or family member of an interviewer. The list goes on. Loose lips and all that...

Finally, who couldn't help but cringe at Stuart "The Brand" Baggs' unintentional rudeness to the Baby Glow lady? The tactless, agressively questioning whippersnapper lost Synergy the chance to sell the innovative product, which eventually resulted in a huge win for Apollo, who won the bid and grossed £995,000k of orders for Liz, who pitched impeccably throughout. Baggsy didn't MEAN to be be insulting, but his unintentional ill behaviour contributed massively to the team's failure. We should all keep in mind that treating people badly without thinking of the consequences is a dangerous thing to do - who wants to be the one with foot in mouth disease all the time?!

I think that's all I have to "conversate" with you for now... I'm off to watch a re-run of "The Apprentice: You're Fired" and have another laugh at Ms Cohen's expense. I never thought gloating could be this much fun...

The Apprentice and The Importance of Background Checking

2010-10-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

The Apprentice is well underway with two episodes having come and gone, and Alan Sugar (now Lord Sugar rather than Suralan) has the uneviable task of trying to control the latest batch of self-proclaimed business geniuses.

Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.

Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?

I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.

Recruitment Roundup and Hard Labour....

2010-10-12T02:49:00.000-07:00

There's been a few interesting snippets of recruitment news recently, so I thought I'd do a little round up this week, to make a change.

Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.

Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.

And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.

So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....

Back to school and work - oh, the horror...

2010-09-03T03:52:00.000-07:00

It's that time again - the beginning of autumn, the start of a new school year and the return to some semblance of a routine after the heady days of summer and holidays. Some greet this with relief, especially after six weeks stuck at home with bickering, bored children, whilst others feel depressed at going back to work after a fabulous week or two spent by the pool.

For working mums, the return to the office is a mixed blessing. Some are sad to say goodbye to the precious time spent with their children during annual leave and cope with the before school hissy fits and the after school hyperactivity, others are just pleased to get back to normality and the school run/ commute routine. Considering that most employers offer 20-25 days holiday leave a year (on top of Bank Holidays), most of us will have had to use some other form of childcare during the summer as well as taking time off. I am extremely lucky to have parents who force me to hand over the little darlings for two weeks at a time and whisk them off to their Welsh seaside retreat. Quality. For others, holiday clubs or out-of-school childcare is the only option - but with this costing between £75 and £105 per child per week, the summer holidays can be a large additional expense for working parents. And with thousands of children starting school today, for many mums it is the first chance they have to get back to work after starting a family... offering a whole new issue of seeking flexible or part-time work. Whilst plenty of mums are happy to work full time, there are plenty more who aren't quite ready to relinquish the hold of the school run and the teatime tantrums, and they now have to enter the fierce competition to gain a part-time job as well as deal with the equally fierce competition at the school gates.

At present, part-time workers are at an all-time high, fuelled by the economy and the current unemployment crisis, with people previously in full-time work now forced to work less hours just to remain in work. Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007, almost 100,000 mothers have been pushed back to work to make ends meet, and many of these will be part-time workers. With the cost of before and after school care and childminders so high in many areas, part-time work can be equally financially viable as full-time work once you factor these costs in. Many find jobs in shops or cafes, others as part-time administrators, secretaries or receptionists. There are always part-time jobs to be found working for local government - whether in an office or as a teaching assistant or secretary of a school. Councils offer flexibility and school jobs offer a great opportunity for part-time work which also fits in around the school holidays, thus eliminating the need for any additional childcare and the associated cost. However, the competition is huge as these jobs are highly sought after - not surprisingly - and councils now expect applicants to fill out long and sometimes difficult application forms, although some schools will accept applications direct. If you already work, don't forget that anyone with children under six is entitled to request flexible working. An increasing number of mums are turning to self employment, using existing professional expertise to go freelance, or starting up a small business.

Fitting work around children is no easy task. Ideal hours are between 9.30 and 2.30, to allow time to drop the kids off and then pick them up from school, and if you're lucky enough to land one of these jobs (as I have been), then it's plain sailing from here on in. Disregarding, of course, problems with little unanticipated matters such as inset days, sick children, family emergencies...

My kids haven't gone back to school yet. I have that pleasure yet to come, next week. Neither, as you can imagine, are desperate to return. The six year old has been ecstatic to spend all summer roaming the streets with his mates, cycling and skateboarding. He is brown from the sun as well as the dirt. The thirteen year old has been equally ecstatic to be able to lie in bed until midday and then loaf around the house playing computer games and watching documentaries. Tough luck to them, I say. If I have to go back to work whilst the Other Half gloats because he still has a few days off... Although, having said that, I'm sitting here in my comfortable office, blogging, whilst he's stuck at home refereeing between two fighting beasts, so who's having the last laugh?

(For a good range of council and school jobs, check out www.jobsgopublic.com for opportunities in your area.

For more information about working rights and entitlements, go to www.direct.gov.uk

For help and advice on working for yourself, see www.businesslink.gov.uk)

Poor performance in the workplace - let's share the blame...

2010-08-16T02:57:00.001-07:00

Although the World Cup is well over, memories of England's crushing defeat were still fresh in the minds of the nation last week. Players were warned that they may be booed at the friendly against Hungary on Wednesday by disillusioned fans who felt that they had been let down by the squad's poor performance. Steven Gerrard, the current Captain, was even quoted saying that he would boo his own team if he was a fan - not very reassuring. Luckily, England went on to win the Hungary match 2-1, to an underfilled Wembley's delight. How humiliating it would have been to be publicly booed and jeered for failing to do a decent job, and how lucky for England that they finally upped their game and played some good football. Some people feel they got away lightly after embarrassing us all (yet again) at the world cup. The North Korean team, however, didn't. They were shamed during a six hour public enquiry after they failed to win any of their three World Cup group games. The whole squad was forced onto a stage at the People's Palace of Culture, and critised by the Sports Minister, Pak Myong-chol, in front of a 400-strong crowd. Their coach, Kim Jong-hun, was allegedly made to work as a builder and expelled from the Worker's Party of Korea. Some may say that England deserved no less...

But who is to blame for poor performance? The players? Coaches? Managers? In the past, the blame for England's underperformance has always been laid firmly at the feet of the manager. Yet, we have seen three managers come and go in quick succession - all of whom are rubbish? The one constant is the team. On the other hand, you could say that the team cannot do well without being properly managed, and they have been unlucky in having three incompetent managers in a row. North Korea's leaders kindly shared out the blame between the coach and the players, perhaps recognising the fact that a team effort means that everyone is responsible in some way for a successful - or unsuccessful - outcome. Fabio Cappello has apologised for England's rubbish playing in the World Cup, admitting that he knew they wouldn't be fit for the tournament before the games started, after a tiring summer schedule, at the pre-training camp. The fans had such high hopes for some victory, whilst the manager knew that this would be unlikely. And yet he is still managing the team, in essence being rewarded with the chance of running England for Euro 2012 as well as a big fat paypacket - this for a man who admits he underperforms. So who do we really blame? Fabio Cappello, for not making the training work for the team? The gruelling summer season in club football? The players for not making sure they were up to the task? Nick Powell of Sky News says that there are plenty of reasons that England's national squads are struggling to play a good game. He cites poor youth training, too many matches and over-emphasis on club football as just some of the problems facing English football. So, it seems we can blame the organisation just as much as the players and managers.

Off the pitch, and into the office. Poor performance in the workplace is just as much a problem, albeit one not witnessed and judged by the nation. Where does the blame lie for us normal people who don't achieve what we should? - and where does it stop short of being a problem and becoming a sacking offence... much like many of us felt that Cappello's was? Personnel Today report that employers lose £32m a year tolerated poor performance, with the most popular way of dealing with this being to "manage them out". Poor performance obviously needs to be dealt with, but how? Issues such as health reasons and workplace stress need to be look at as a reason for underperforming, rather than just incapability - or refusal - to carry out the tasks required. Failure to perform through negligence, laziness or insubordination counts as misconduct, and is a sacking offence. The problem with underperforming staff is the knock-on effect on everyone else - teams being affected and not delivering, other staff taking up the slack, managers who lay unreasonable demands on their juniors to hide their own substandard performance. Personnel Today emphasise the importance of nipping performance issues in the bud, and handling them in a way that works to solve them, rather than blame and dismiss the individual. Minor issues should be dealt with informally, giving the employee the chance to explain and agree necessary improvements. If formal proceedings commence, the employer should investigate underlying capability. More importantly, the employer should provide additional support, supervision and training where required, along with agreed timescales for improvement. Most people don't mean to, or want to, underachieve - or get sacked - after all. Unlike the Head of Hr for Cable & Wireless, Bernard Buckley, who fired 85% of his underperforming team within a week of starting, most employers are looking to retain and improve their staff rather than get rid of them!

Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about who to blame for poor performance, and start thinking about who can improve it. If employers, managers and staff can work together to boost performance (and morale), then this is surely the best way forward. Maybe Fabio Cappello can work with his squad to pull themselves together for the next Euros, and avoid the backlash of public opinion after the very disappointing performance seen in this World Cup.

That, or we need to bring back public flogging....

Grow your own

2010-07-19T03:26:00.000-07:00

I've been getting into growing my own veg recently. As much a shock to me as to everyone who knows me as an anti-gardener and the unwitting murderer of many a pot plant, I have started to enjoy the process. The lazy planting of seeds in rich compost-filled pots out in the sunshine - even more fun if the children help - and the loving watering in. The excitement of checking for fresh green shoots or buds of fruit every day, the gentle watering with my brand new watering can, and the joy at finding that first tomato, or potato shoot. So far, we have eaten our own lettuce and rocket, have eight teeny tomatoes waiting to ripen, and have leafy pots of radishes, peppers and potatoes waiting for the right time to be harvested. The only things not growing at the moment are the strawberries - but I have handed over all responsibility to my boys, so we may not get anything... It's such a rewarding experience to see all the different plants bloom and grow in different ways, after being nurtured and cared for. I am hoping to add some dwarf patio runner beans to my collection soon, as well as some more tomato plants.

And all this got me thinking about the need to nurture, and the different ways in which recruiters need to nurture their candidates. You wouldn't just chuck a tomato plant in some soil and leave it, hoping for rain to water it and keep it alive (well, you might do but it isn't advised!), so why do some recruiters just send someone's CV over to the client and hope for the best? Candidates need to be treated with love, like my radishes. There isn't a one-size-fits-all way to deal with candidates - everyone is different, with different needs, aspirations and desires. Just as tomatoes need lots of water, some tomato feed and a bamboo stick to keep them upright, some candidates need to have their confidence boosted, and guidance to the right sort of job. Potatoes can be chucked in a bag full of compost and as long as you water them regularly are usually OK, much as some candidates are happy with a quick chat to clarify a role and the client, and then for you to send their CV over. And this is before we even get to the interview stage, the most important part of the whole process for candidate, client and recruiter.

This is where the nurturing can really pay off. Any recruiter worth his or her salt knows the importance of prepping the candidate for the interview. Everyone has their own techniques as interviewer or interviewee, and all companies have their own way of conducting interviews. This is where the recruiter's expertise and knowledge comes in, where we can add value to the candidate's experience by talking them through what to expect, what type of interview it will be and so on. Like my poor peppers, whose leaves wilt in the hot sun and who need to be revived with regular drinks of water, candidates will also wither under the spotlight unless cared for beforehand. Candidates need to be fully prepared for the interview, and nurtured towards maximum confidence and best performance. While some people feel comfortable being interviewed and can cope under any circumstances, some need a lot more gentle handling and to know every last detail of the company/ interview styles and interviewer's personality. Unless we take the time to understand what the individual candidate needs, we cannot care for them in the right way.

And don't forget to carry on the nurturing after harvest time - whether successful or not! Keep in touch with successful candidates once they have started their new job. Keep in touch with unsuccessful candidates... offer them useful feedback and listen to their experience, so that next time things hopefully have a different outcome. Treat your candidates as you would treat your veg - with love - and they will reward you with the fruit of your toil. Nuture and care for them, and you will see the difference. Just as I do with my home growns.

Speaking of which, must dash - I forgot to water the tomatoes last night...

New government, new unemployment, no New Deal?

2010-06-30T05:43:00.000-07:00

With the new Cleggeron government, we all looked forward to renewed economic growth, efficient spending and an improvement in unemployment figures. Unluckily, since Dave and Nick decided to cut spending on everything worthwhile, it seems that even more people are at risk of losing their jobs. A leaked treasury report - publicised by The Guardian - revealed that 1.3m jobs could go by 2015, 120,000 of these from the public sector. Although the government say that experts predict a fall in unemployement and a rise in employment, many are dubious. The TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, warned of 80's reminiscent dole queues, widespread poverty and a widening north-south divide. There was a 7.9% drop in unemployment to 2.47m in the three months to April, and over the quarter an increase of 23,000 - less than expected. Jobseekers Allowance claims fell by 30,900 to under 1.5m, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. I don't know about you, but I find it confusing to be told that unemployment has risen whilst JSA claims have dropped - are people therefore not claiming even though they are out of work? Or are they, instead, claiming allowances such as Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance (preciously Incapacity Benefit) due to illness or disability? More worryingly, there was an increase of 85,000 to 772,000 people who have been out of work for over 12 months - the highest since April 1997. One million young people are unemployed and struggling to even start a job or career.

Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.

Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.

I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.

Time off to watch the Footie? Work and the World Cup

2010-06-09T06:06:00.000-07:00

The World Cup is once again in the limelight... and it doesn't feel like four years since the last one! As employees all over England begin the countdown to the excitement, employers are feeling an all-too familar sense of dread, wondering just how the footie might impact their business. According to The Chartered Management Institute, the World Cup could cost businesses an uncool £1 billion, with SMEs losing £400m of this. Ouch. They also say that 54% of employers are worried that online coverage will distract their workers, 53% fear that chatting about the matches will stop people working, and 40% suspect that sickies will be pulled to allow their employees the time to watch the beautiful game. And that's before people start chatting to their friends on Facebook or Twitter about the footie, rather than catching up with their work. According to a survey by Blue Coat Systems, 54% of workers plan to watch the World Cup AT work - even though an equal number of IT managers reckon this should be banned.

The HR Dept (www.hrdept.co.uk) are warning employers to watch out for higher levels of absence, or hangovers caused from the previous evenings celebrations - or commiserations! Last year the UK economy lost £2.5 billion on 27 million bogus sickies... even with no World Cup to encourage them! Sky News reports that 1 in 7 people plan to watch all games this year, compared with under 13% for the 2006 competition, so it seems that some of the worries are justified. HR Dept suggest introducing some sort of flexibility to minimise disruption. Asda, for example, are offering a shift swap system whereby staff can negotiate their own shift exchanges with colleagues who don't want to watch a match (who on earth wouldn't want to watch?!) Call Centre Helper are urging employers to plan ahead. Suggestions include screening matches at work, offering flexible working, encouraging people to use annual leave and using watching matches at work as an incentive. Watching the game together can, apparently, bond team members... assuming they all support the same side!

Director Magazine (www.director.co.uk) debates whether EXTRA time off should be given to footie fans during this competition. But should we really be rewarded for preferring to watch the World Cup, rather than go to work? Professor Gary Cooper of Lancaster University Management School says YES. He claims that this will keep people focused, encourage autonomy and bonding, stimulate discussions and show employees that they are trusted to work hard in recompense, rather than be micro managed. Hilary Griffin, Professional Support Lawyer at Clyde & Co., says NO. She feels that it would be unfair on non-football fans as well as those who prefer other sporting events, and that employers would be better off encouraging holiday time is taken, giving time off later as a reward, implementing a policy on internet access (perhaps some viewing if work is made up later). What a spoilsport.

Employers also have to be careful about the risks of discrimination. Why should someone be allowed time off to watch an World Cup match, for example, but not Wimbledon? If people are using holiday time just to watch England play, then those who request leave to watch other teams must also be given preference. With the World Cup being such a huge deal for us here in the UK - as well as everywhere else - it seems mean not to allow people to join in wholeheartedly with the celebrations, but at the same time is a bit impractical. It's just a good thing that most of the games are in the evenings and weekends this time round, so the office workers are only at risk of being intensely hungover rather than skiving to actually watch the matches, I suppose. Unlucky for the evening workers, then - those who cannot take annual leave to watch will have to put a cunning plan in place to get their footie fix.

Personally, I'm only in it for the obligatory beer, but have been forced by my kids to display England flags from every orifice of my house and car. I may as well bother to watch some of the footie now, I suppose - nobody wants to be left out, work or no work.

Strike me down, BA's off again...

2010-05-26T05:18:00.000-07:00

British Airways is in the news - again - with the announcement of yet more strikes to come... and this time, targeted at disrupting the Bank Holiday weekend. As if the BH isn't going to be bad enough what with the forecast of rain and predicted motorway congestion, now anyone who booked BA flights to whisk them off to sunnier climes has also lucked out. BA last announced massive strike plans back in December, to cover the Christmas period, causing massive panic among management and customers alike. The staff were set to strike over pay freezes, and working conditions. Airline bosses believed that the measures were unavoidable and essential to keep the business afloat. Having reported losses in early 2009 of £401 million, they felt that, seeing as most of their staff already earned almost twice as much as those working for Virgin, it made sense to keep pay as it was. The cabin crew disagreed, and 13,500 of them agreed to support the strike. Thankfully for the estimated one million passengers who may have found themselves living in an airport for the festive period, a high court injunction banned the strike - describing it as illegal - and business went on as normal. So people slowly began to forget, and book their BA flights once more. Until now.

Yes, the cabin crews have decided to implement not one but two strikes over the coming weekend, citing the removal of travel perks (discounted tickets) for those staff who staged a walk out back in March. They feel that this is punishment for participating in industrial action. Heaven forbid that anyone should be punished for causing discruption to flight schedules, financial loss for their employer, misery and stress for passengers and complications for their fellow workers. Anyway, that's what it's all about this time. British Airways had its injunction to block industrial action turned down last week, and refused an offer by Unite to call off the strike if perks were reinstated. Although they are planning further court action as I write, the situation for travellers this weekend seems bleaker than ever, with reduced, delayed and cancelled flights.

There is an ominous lack of public support for the strikes. BA are well known for their higher than industry average salaries, and complaining about them just seems, well, ungrateful perhaps? Public sector strikes, on the other hand, are able to glean more public support, and are generally accepted as more necessary. The strikes of public service staff back in July 2008 saw thousands of government workers backing up complaints of inadequate payrises. In March this year, they were awarded an extra 0.3% rise, making an overall 2.75% rise at all points, backdated to April 2008. People such as cleaners, librarians, teaching assistants, refuse collectors and social workers are generally seen as more "worthy" of a higher wage, possibly because they are paid less than those in the private sector. If British Airways are already paying top whack - senior cabin staff earn up to £56k a year, hardly peanuts - then if they haven't got the budget to pay more, what's next?

In any strike action, whether by public service or BA workers, who loses out most? The British public, that's who. But we can overlook not having our bins emptied for a few weeks, or the schools shutting for a day or two (which is a huge source of joy to our children anyway). We can't overlook having paid good money for a premium travel service and then being messed about, or having our holiday ruined by airline staff who are, in many people's opinions, taking the mickey. EasyJet are having a field day with their new ad - "Why trust BA? EasyJet has over 500,000 ways to help!" They, at least, are overjoyed with the strike news. As for everyone else, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed. And vow never to book a flight with BA ever again.

I'm just glad I'd already decided to spend the Bank Holiday enjoying the glorious UK wind and rain, as I sit stuck in endless traffic listening to screaming kids in the backseat. Bliss.

Jobs for the Girls?

2010-05-17T04:19:00.000-07:00

I haven't been to the Jobcentre in years, but last time I was there was looking for admin/clerical work and was advised on a few relevant vacancies by staff. In Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire last week, women looking for these types of jobs were also advised by Jobcentre staff - but rather than office work, were handed information about sex lines! The company recruiting, Faceclick, are offering up to £700 a week if you strip off, plonk your bits in front of a webcam and have sexually explicit chats with punters. Naturally, it all came as a bit of a shock to the jobseekers, especially with words such as "fetish", "Just 18 legal", and "role play" being mentioned in the adverts. Sky News HD readers leapt into the comments section, with predictable results - shock and horror from most women, smut from the men, and lots of blaming the government for the downfall in society due to advertising sex. Blah blah blah. There were one or two women boasting that they had similar jobs, and were the best they'd ever had, and a few more "liberated" people who couldn't see the harm in advertising adult jobs in the Jobcentre. There was also some concern about whether benefits would be affected if, say, someone was ungrateful enough to turn down such an opportunity. Prior to 2003, the Jobcentre wouldn't allow recruiters to advertise work within the sex industry. However, Ann Summers sucessfully took their case to court, and set a precedent for advertising such roles. The general consensus, though, is that selling lacy knickers and a few sex toys is worlds apart from working in the porn industry, and the DWP is taking advice about withdrawing their Faceclick adverts after pressure from Mediawatch- UK.

It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.

Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.

The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...

Snog Marry Avoid

2010-05-05T04:02:00.000-07:00

One day to go until the General Election, and you'd think that everyone has decided who they are going to vote for. It ain't necessarily so. The good old swing voters are still undecided, and last minute changes of mind (and heart) are possible over the next 34 hours. And it's women - again - who make up the majority of the swing voters, and who the three main parties are desperate to convince before time runs out.

During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.

This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.

So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.

The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.

So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.

There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.

(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)

I want my money back...

2010-04-26T03:47:00.000-07:00

An article published in The Times (Online) caught my interest this morning. James, who gave up his home to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement, found out a year later that the daughter he had lavished with love - and maintenance, school fees etc - for seventeen years was not his child. He suspected and accused his wife of having an affair three years into the marriage, which she denied, and at the end of the year their daughter was born. By the time she was ten or eleven, James says that he had doubts about her paternity - but he didn't do anything about it. His wife and he were seperated, although not divorced, by this time. A few years later, he felt he finally had to find out for sure, and had the test done without telling his daughter first. Devastated, and feeling betrayed, James has informed his daughter of the result - and he is taking his wife to court to get back his share in the family home, which he chose to relinquish as part of the divorce settlement. So, effectively, he wants a refund on his daughter, as she is not his and he was been tricked into believing she was (although his ex-wife claims she had no idea he wasn't the father either). One has to wonder if it will be worth his while - not only has he deeply hurt his daughter, he also has a court case costing an estimated £250,000 looming over him - but he claims it's the principle of the matter.

This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.

James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.

For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.

Has social media killed the cultural star?

2010-04-06T02:49:00.000-07:00

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read an article by the BBC, reporting that Shakespeare's romantic tragedy Romeo and Juliet is to be told across Twitter. The joint venture between Channel 4 and the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company, philistines) will see "Such Tweet Sorrow" - ah, the witticism - being tweeted across the social network in 140-character chunks, due to go live on 12th April. Romeo and Juliet? On Twitter? Who the heck thought that up? Apparently Channel 4 have vowed to double their arts coverage budget to $6m, so maybe they're just trying to save the advertising costs. Will it really work, though? Who is going to see this insane "broadcast" and think, 'Oooh, Shakespeare is really great after all, innit?' I get it, I really do. Channel 4 getting down with the kids, making Romeo and Juliet a funky, real love story, in small doses so that the over-hyped, information overdosed ADHD ridden teenagers can process it, making Shakespeare cool. Of course, then they will be making sure they watch Channel 4 arts programmes, asking their parents for tickets to the RSC's next production of Hamlet, and begging their teachers to let them read a Shakespeare play a week for their GCSE English Literature. I thought all this stuff had been done before. Shorter versions of Shakespeare published for kids, along with stage performances of the same. Baz Lurhman made R&J sexy for a while in the 90's, thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes as the star-cross'd lovers in his abridged, camp and West Side Story-esque film. How quickly we forget. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to dumb down Shakespeare even more, that's all. Will it work? Who knows. Can social networking promote the arts, or will using it in this way serve only to simplify literature, music and art, alienate those amongst us who enjoy these pursuits, and give the kids something else to sneer at?

It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.

In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.

I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.

But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.

How Your Employee's Twitter Posts Can Ruin Your Business.

2010-03-22T06:23:00.001-07:00

The other day I received an invitation to partake of dowloading a MessageLabs whitepaper, the email titled as above, promising to uncover the business issues associated with web (mis) use in the workplace". Lucky me, it was part of an IT Compliance Bulletin and also included the tempting "Free 10-page Guide to Achieving ISO 27001 Certification", "Dangerous Things You Didn't Know About Outbound Emails" (and I don't think they just mean the ones you send to ex-boyfriends after a few glasses of wine and get yourself in a 'situation') and - my personal favourite - "A Masterclass In Threat Detection And Prevention!". I haven't read any of them yet. In fact, I've only just downloaded the first one, "Is Social Networking Really Bad For Business?". So, anyway, can employee's Twitter posts really ruin your business? The same, or even more so than, say, posting semi-clad photos of themselves on Facebook, or slagging you off down the pub to all and sundry, or taking out an advert in The Times to let middle England read all about it? Are they even talking about the posts in a content way, or do they mean the time spent posting rather than working? I'd rather the more scandalous and salacious reasons, such as posting photos of you in bed with the MD, for example. I am prepared to be disappointed though. So how DOES the evil Twitter go about destroying businesses and lives? The mind boggles. But let it boggle no more, dear reader - because I am happy to share with you the secrets of the MessageLabs report. It's probably stuff we all know anyway. We can read through it together. Let's start on Page 1, shall we?

It all seems to stem from the changed nature of internet use in the workplace, put in motion by those pesky young Generation Y-ers. Rather than just using t'interweb for emails, research and buying shoes in the Brand Alley sale in your lunch hour, you can now have a chat with your mates, upload photos from your mobile phone, share a video or song, and update your relationship status. All in the space it takes your colleague to make a cup of tea ready and bring in the digestives. With Facebook growing 228% in the 12 months since Feb 2008, and Twitter a massive 1382%, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that there must be a hell of a lot of people using these social networking sites whilst on the clock. Next up is the blending of work and personal life, with people expecting to be able to access the internet for personal use whilst at work, for various reasons. Gambling, checking personal emails (Hotmail, Yahoo! etc), downloading music and so on. Over two thirds of online porn traffic occurs during office hours, according to http://www.getsafeonline.org/. And of course, Tweeting and sheep throwing are also very popular. Hearteningly, some of us are good little boys and girls and use the net to download work relevant software, and are harnessing social networking sites for the good - to build contacts for networking, lead generation and to keep up with industry developments. We are known as "committed employees", don't you know. Blogs and forums are now used as important business tools, especially for marketing or recruitment led companies.

So what's the problem? Well, apparently there are web risks to business. Duh, like we didn't already know that. Everyone knows that. So are MessageLabs telling us anything new? The first consideration is of direct, measurable costs. Reduced productivity and wasted bandwidth are cited as examples of this. Security is an issue - malicious websites, accidental loss of data and new threats from cybercriminals. Legal compliance is also a problem, as are employee/HR issues and unauthorised software downloads. All these can lead to businesses being sued, fined and generally getting into lots of trouble. Right down at the bottom of the pile is brand and reputation risk. Personally, I think that this last one is the largest issue for any SME, who rely more heavily on word of mouth than larger companies who can exercise damage control in most cases should their reputation be threatened. Most companies already have a AUP - Acceptable Use Policy - in place to minimise these risks. If yours hasn't, then as an owner/boss, get one - as an employee, enjoy surfing while you can!

Interesting stuff, if not exactly groundbreaking. Yes, it's obvious we shouldn't post confidential documents or information pertaining to work on Facebook. Or look at porn, or Tweet and blog when were are pretending to be typing up the minutes of last week's AGM. But whilst the report concentrates the obviously quantifiable risks to business, especially security (not surprisingly, being produced by MessageLabs, Symantec Hosted Services TM) it doesn't mention any of the sorts of things that people do on social networking sites that could affect the reputation/brand adversely.
Things like writing on your friend's wall about how much you hate your job and boss, using four letter words exclusively. Things like slagging off a client and naming them. Things like posting dirty pictures of yourself on your Facebook page and inviting professional contacts to look. Maybe stuff like generally being foul mouthed and chavvy when you post on Twitter, or updating your Facebook status every time you get drunk, dumped, or laid. In themselves, all these things could be seen as pretty harmless (except the dirty pics one... unless you know that your contacts will be happy to see you in a PVC nurse's uniform and won't mention it to your boss). Unfortunately, all these things are probably an extremely stupid idea if you have lots of colleagues following you on Twitter or as Facebook friends, and a bloody ridiculous idea if you actually have your boss/manager/HR director etc as a contact able to access everything you write or upload.

You know what? I don't think your employee's Twitter posts CAN ruin your business. If you run the company properly, and treat people well, they won't need to write nasty things about you. If they are fulfilled and interested in their jobs, they won't have to spend all day Tweeting for something to do. And, at the end of the day, you're responsible for the hiring (even if indirectly) of your staff... so if they end up twisting the internet to use it for pure evil, then you need to ask yourself how they ever got through the first stage interview.

Mind you, when I got my job I hadn't even heard of Twitter, so my poor boss never stood a chance...

For more free whitepapers on web security and the like, see www.messagelabs.co.uk

Game, Sir? No, Sir - that's a bar chart, Sir...

2010-03-20T18:33:00.000-07:00

Bored at work? Addicted to computer games? Fed up of jumping guiltily every time your boss walks into the room and having to hastily shut down your game window so you don't get caught out? Me too. If Big Fish Games had never been invented, I would be much more productive. I hear there are some people who truly love their work and would never find it tedious, but suspect these are a) dull as dishwater, b) exceptionally overpaid or c) lying. Or all three. Although I would have thought that b) precludes a), but what do I know about the world of work? Not too much, as it happens, although I try to get at least some of it done in between hidden object games, Prison Break marathons and street dance (yes, really ... although an accurate description would involve adding the word "pitiful" somewhere, as opposed to dance). Anyway, all is not lost, fellow lazies - for some marvellous chaps at CantYouSeeImBusy.com have solved our problem with a cunning plan. They have created games, inspired by old style arcade games that many of us grew up with such as Breakout and Tetris. Fine, I hear you say - but what's so interesting about that? Well, you may like this, workshy ones - all the games are disguised as Excel and Word documents so your boss will never find out! These games follow the general gist of the classics they copy, just played against what look like genuine office applications. Tidy. In Leadership, you have to direct a spaceship between two lines of a graph and Breakdown (based on the wonderful Atari Breakout) sees the player having to hit lines of text to make them disappear, rather than the original bricks. According to the Dutch developers' website, "all the games at CantYouSeeImBusy.com are designed in a way that nobody can see that you’re gaming. In fact, your boss and colleagues will think that you’re working harder than ever before." Hmmm. I can see two major flaws there. Firstly, that the games sound less than inspiring, and secondly, most bosses would be suspicious if a previously lackadaisical employee suddenly stopped surfing OnlineGames.net and started gazing intently at pie charts. Especially when their job role doesn't even involve pie charts. And the conscientious part of me feels that it's a bit, well, irresponsible to encourage people to play computer games when they are being paid to work, even if it is all intended as a bit of fun and they would do it anyway. Maybe I am just an old stick in the mud. Well, we can't all be perfect.

In defiance of being made to feel like a naughty schoolgirl, I prefer to opt for the good old-fashioned work avoidance techniques - day dreaming, copious note taking/ internet research (hey, why do you think I like to blog?!), toilet trips, cigarette breaks, offering to do the coffee run etc - personally. And if that doesn't work, then never fear. Just swap desks so you face your boss, look engrossed, quizzical, thoughtful and serious at appropriate/ equal intervals, and keep your Big Fish pop-up window open. After all, if it's good enough for me...

For the hidden games, see www.CantYouSeeImBusy.com

For hidden object games, see www.bigfishgames.com

Can you Recogniz(r) the danger?

2010-03-10T03:19:00.000-08:00

Last month, Swedish android developers The Amazing Tribe (or TAT, to those in the know), displayed a controversial new mobile application at the Mobile World Congress. If you haven't heard all about Recognizr by now, then you must either be over 70 or have been taking part in David Mitchell's "interesting" BBC2 show The Bubble. Long story short, Recognizr - not a typo - is an "augmented reality application" (TAT), which you chuck on your mobile phone. Just use the camera to take a picture of anyone you see who looks familiar/ interesting/ attractive etc, and lo and behold, Recognizr allows you to find them on Facebook or Twitter and read all about them. TAT claim that this application will improve the social networking experience of those people to whom social networking is an essential part of their life (saddos, teenagers, and stalkers spring to mind). Talking of the latter, The Sun was quick to publish an article branding the Recognizr application as a "stalker's dream", in their typical tabloid scaremongering style. Their trademark layout saw an article emblazoned with heavily bolded words to ram home the point that BURGLARS, BLACKMAILERS and PERVERTS would take no time at all to turn the application to heinous use. Well, I say. According to The Sun's talent-free Richard Moriarty, security "experts" say that burglars will be able to take pictures of people on a night out and then find out their addresses in order to rob them, anyone "fooling around" on a night out would be vulnerable to blackmail (what "fooling about" entails is anyone's guess, but based on the average standard of The Sun's readership, probably sleeping with your fiancee's sister, in which case you deserve to be blackmailed) and women would be stalked by perverts. Nothing new there then.

The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.

More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.

But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.

So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.

Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.

Walk like a man, talk like a man... smoke and drink like a man?

2010-02-26T04:46:00.000-08:00

Cigars. What does the word bring to mind? Gentlemen's clubs, leather Chesterfield chairs, huge boxes of havanas being opened and inhaled, celebration, sophistication, signs of wealth... and Fidel Castro. So, essentially, only found in a male domain, along with beards, dodgy underpants and single malt. Aha, but you see, that's where you're wrong. Habanas Cuban Cigars, in a joint venture with our own tobacco giant British Imperial Tobacco, have come up with a new cigar - especially for women. The Julieta, as it is called, is smaller and milder than traditional cigars, and the manufacturers hope that it will widen the circle of cigar-smoking chicks, which already include famous faces such as Jodie Foster, Whoopi Goldberg, Madonna and Sharon Stone. Well, it's an interesting concept, and one way to fight back in the face of the smoking bans which have severely knocked profits for the tobacco industry in recent years. Personally, I'm not sure how popular cigars are going to be for the ladies, but then I used to smoke roll-ups back in my teenage days, so perhaps style and sophistication aren't exactly my strong point... I am prepared to concede that, if women do like a smoke - particularly of the cigar-y persuasion - then the Julieta will probably beat a Hamlet any day of the week. It is, however, worrying to see tobacco products being aimed specifically at women, when UK female smoking death figures are still rising.

And it seems that tobacco is not the only vice being marketed towards women nowadays. The pub chain Green King has launched a "Public Housewives" recruitment drive, as they are desperate to get more women involved with the licensing industry. Parallel to this, they are working on plans to offer larger wine glasses, glossy magazines, free toiletries and flowers on the tables in their pubs - to get more women to socialise with each other whilst enjoying a drink and a meal. Not just any women, sorry - only SWAGS need apply. Sassy, Wise And Grown-up ladies in the 35 yr plus bracket. That's almost me! Well, I'm certainly sassy, and 35 this year, but as for the rest.. Hey, two outta four ain't bad. I can even become a "fan" on Green King's Facebook Fan page, or apply for a job with them via Twitter. The pub industry is quickly latching on to the social networking trend in women, and to their advantage. It's all a bit of a cause for concern, though, in view of the constant reports coming through of increased risk of certain cancers in women who drink... although I'm all for larger measures of sauvignon and a copy of Heat! whilst I guzzle.

Perhaps it's just a cunning ploy by male marketers to like going to the pub for the sole purpose of making mens' lives easier... if the missus fancies a jar, then they're home and dry for the evening. On a practical side, pushing up sales of pints of Stella and pork scratchings as well as those of a cheeky merlot. And on the old cigar front, well, if a woman likes to light one up, she can hardly complain about her better half's smoking habit, can she? The couple who indulge together, stay together... Luckily for us, girls, Coca Cola are launching a multi-million pound marketing campaign to get us to "Love it Light", rather than smoke and drink ourselves into an early grave.

Timed to coincide with the start of London Fashion week next month, Diet Coke will be launching its strike offensive against Pepsi, who are also going to be heavily promoting their own sugar-free ranges this spring. Coke are really going all out this time, partnering with Asos.com to offer the chance to win an outfit every 30 minutes, as well as money-off vouchers... plus letting us girlies collect Coke Zone points with each purchase that can be swapped for copies of mags like Grazia, Closer and More! All good so far. And there is even a new TV ad campaign starring three girl puppets who are going to tempt us into "loving it light". So it's 'da boch chi' to the cycling songstress Duffy, and hello puppets. Er... surely something's wrong with this picture? I can't be the only one who is still devastated at the sudden disappearance of the Diet Coke Break Man! Is he still resident in the US ads do you think - or have Coca Cola decided to go all politically correct on us and deprive us of hard, muscular and semi-clad sexgods? I'm all for equality, and cessation of sexism and gender stereotype in the media - but this is going a step too far, by golly.

Obviously, re-engineering or creating products for women is big business, as is female-targetted marketing for existing ones. It shows the huge shift in attitude both towards and from women, as well as the socio-economic impact of more professional and working women, and our disposable income is now being fought over by big name brands. I wonder what will be next to try and win us over to the dark (male) side... Pink Pot Noodles? Diamante spanners? Who knows. I'm not that interested to be honest. I'm off to YouTube to do a quick search under "diet coke break man please". Sweet.

When is a buzzword not a dirty word?

2010-02-19T05:15:00.001-08:00

We've all sat in management meetings playing Buzzword Bingo, or tried to have a quiet drink in a bar over-populated by noisy execs braying out their favourite cliches and laughed at them. We all hate hearing the same overused, somehow popular phrases over and over until they become meaningless. But - as much as we hate to admit it - we do all find ourselves, from time to time, giving in to the lure of the magic words and using them ourselves. Not you? I don't believe you. However, fear not. It's time to grasp the nettle, folks - because, in Jobseeker Land, buzzwords are not always dirty words.

Job seeking has changed immensely since the days of buying your local paper and sending off your CV and cover letter by snail mail. Nowadays, applications are made with the click of a mouse, and job websites hold huge databases of CVs that candidates have uploaded for viewing by recruiters. So, your CV's up on Monster (for example), now all you have to do is sit back and wait for the phone to ring, right? Sort of. Recruiters search for CVs using key words specific to the roles they are looking to fill. We use a Boolean search string to sift out any CVs that don't list the requisite skills or words. An example of this is a string we might use to find a Marketing Analyst who needs to have experience in using SAS or SPSS. So the string is: marketing and (sas or spss). The location is specified elsewhere in the search form, for anyone interested. Or, the analyst may have to have Excel as well, so we'd add this into the search (marketing and (sas or spss) and excel). Recruiters have to scan through hundreds of CVs a day, so by filtering out ones that don't contain key words is a must. If they're not in the CV, the CV doesn't reach the recruiter.

The same rule applies to job applications. If you apply for a role that states you must, for example, have skills in SEO, PPC and social networking, then you must make sure they are all mentioned on your CV. Sounds obvious, but I have seen plenty of applications where the boxes on the cover sheet are ticked (e.g. Do you have social networking skills? YES), but there is nothing on the CV to back this up. The candidate genuinely has the skill, but hasn't mentioned it as it may not be a "proper" or "major" part of their job role. If the CV is good, we will call candidates to check on the "missing" skills, but many recruiters don't have the time - or inclination - to chase it up... after all, there are other candidates out there who have made sure their CVs are properly matched to the roles they are applying for. Even if the recruiter is happy that you do have the skills, if the employer can't see them listed on the CV straightaway, then they have to spend their time following it up - or worse, just completely overlook you for shortlisting.

It goes without saying that you should only write on your CV things that you CAN do - there's no gain in using buzzwords for effect rather than an enhancement. However, don't overlook some of the things that you do that you may assume everyone does... and so don't bother listing. Excel is one, as is some of the other MS packages - Projects and Vision for example. Don't hide your light under a bushel - if you've got it, flaunt it! So then, what are going to be the buzzwords for 2010? Logicalis have listed Web 2.0, cloud computing, social media, virtual desktop, security, Microsoft and Twitter as some of their top technical buzzwords for 2009, and these are set to grow in popularity in 2010. Inflecto say that SEO, custom CMS, mobile web development and frameworks (e.g. .net MVC) are being looked for in techie CVs. Technical people tend to use a lot of key words in their CVs anyway - listing programming languages, applications, frameworks, databases etc, so they are already ahead of the game. Brand Republic have reported that social media is overlooked in marketing CVs - of 4500 CVs looked at over the past 2 years, only 6% referenced social media, 9% Twitter and 2% blogging. There is also a shortfall in SEO (4.7%). These skills are some of the most sought after at the moment - so make sure you tell people if you can blog, Tweet or socially network! Jody at Marketing Jive has compiled a list of 100 top marketing buzzwords... I'm not going to list them all, but some may be worth thinking about - mobile, microblogging, lean, ROI, real-time.

Obviously, using buzzwords in your CV can't guarantee you get a phone call, an interview or a job offer - but it does help! The flip side of this is, people being people and all, some of them can get a little carried away and write their CVs almost completely with buzzwords. Watch yourselves... this may attract recruiter phone calls but if there is no substance in the CV to back up your claims of "online evangelism" or "augmented reality", then you won't get far. Everything in moderation, I say.

Anyway, I'm off to polish up my CV. Now, where can I fit "low-hanging fruit" into it?

Police recruitment cops out...

2010-02-12T05:33:00.000-08:00

And you thought it was tough applying for jobs in your industry! According to BBC News, North Yorkshire Police's recruitment phone lines crashed on Monday, after receiving 20,000 calls during the first day of their recruitment campaign. Following a new number being issued, they have since taken over 200,000 calls from interested parties. And the number of vacancies available? 60. Last month, Lincolnshire Police had to close its recruitment drive after running out of application forms - 1000 were requested in the first 2 hours of a campaign expected to last a week. Their number of available jobs? 60. Seeing a pattern here?

Public sector jobs have become more and more difficult to get into, the most notorious being the police force. It can take years from the initial application to be offered a position. It seems amazing to me that there is such demand for police work, especially in these times when we hear so much about poor police relations, sexual and racial discrimination cases within the force, and the worsening risks of attacks on policemen and women in the rougher areas of society. But it's a good thing that people DO want to keep applying - after all, someone's got to look after the rest of us! And, police work does offer a stable salary, the chance of some overtime, and a great pension. Plus a uniform.

With this immense demand for a place with Britain's finest boys and girls in blue, how ironic then that many forces are implementing recruitment freezes - meaning that applicants who have already passed through the recruitment process successfully are now put on a waiting list for the next available job. West Midlands Police have 240 officer applicants currently in this position, with another 500 waiting to be assessed. In Gloucestershire, almost 100 successful candidates have now been told that their job offers will be put on hold until 2011. And the Met have 2000 applicants hanging around in the system waiting for a job offer and start date. Apparently, recruitment drives have been more successful than anticipated, and less officers left the force last year, leaving fewer vacancies. Greater Manchester Police have announced a complete recruitment freeze from April, as have other forces. Avon and Somerset Police, though, are still advertising available vacancies and it is possible that candidates put on deferral from other forces may apply to them instead.

All down to economics, unsurprisingly. Retention of staff is higher as people haven't been prepared to leave their roles in times of such economic instability. And of course the government are all about cost-cutting wherever they can - all 43 police forces in England and Wales are expected to find combined savings of £545m by 2014. So we need more police, and more people want to join the police, but nobody wants to pay for it. And seriously, who in their right minds would be happy to apply for a job, undertake a rigorous recruitment procedure, be offered the job and accept it and THEN be told that they will have to wait 12-18 months for the position to be available? Because that's what the police force are doing. It's like winning The Apprentice only to be told to sod off back to your crappy old job (or your unfulfilling million pound turnover business if some of the previous candidates are to be believed)and wait a year before Siralan will take you on. Although, personally, I think I'd prefer a 12 month cooling down period to give me time to think of an excuse not to bother turning up in the end.

So, the moral of the tale is this - if you need a job this year, forget the force and look around for acceptable alternatives. Perhaps consider applying for The Apprentice... After all, it's a solid 12 month contract, by which time your police application might even have been looked at.

That, or move to Bristol...

Marketing Society Awards following trends...

2010-01-29T05:39:00.000-08:00

The annual Marketing Society Awards (held this year on June 7th), are closing their voting for 2010's "Best Of" one week today.

In an interesting twist, and in addition to previous years, this year the awards are ushering in some new, more inspiring categories. In a move to keep people positive even though we are still in recession (although some pundits would have us convinced we are out of it... house prices rising, Amazon reporting a 70% Christmas profit etc), new categories have been introduced to show how companies have coped in these difficult times. Categories such as marketing communications on a shoestring and e-commerce show a move towards rewarding "cheaper" methods of marketing. Other categories have also been announced, keeping in line with the top trends of 2009 and 2010 - new brand, digitally-led communications and employee engagement.

Interesting stuff, and showing an industry recognised move away from traditional marketing in favour of newer, technology driven methods. It seems that marketing agencies are changing the way they work - or at least adding to it - and opening up opportunities for digital and brand marketeers who can effectively take existing marketing channels and expand on them to reach a new market. All good news for recruiters who work within this arena - like us! - and who are already recruiting digital and online marketing professionals for their clients.

Especially encouraging is the marketing communications on a shoestring category, which will hopefully go a long way towards assuring small and medium sized business - or larger ones suffering budget cuts - that they can still carry out a successful campaign without spending a lot.

It will be very interesting to see who comes out top at the Awards for Excellence ceremony. Last year's winners included Thomson Reuters, McCann Erikson and WCRS, so the competition is high. With these new categories announced though, will it be new companies blagging the awards, or will previous winners have changed strategies to come out on top again, just in a new area?

See www.www.marketing-society.org.uk for more information.

David Cameron wants "brazenly elitist" approach to teacher recruitment...

2010-01-21T03:16:00.000-08:00

As much as I like David Cameron, I am somewhat ambivalent to read reports that he intends (if and when, of course, the Tories make it back into power this year) to make entry into teacher training more difficult. Promising funding to the brightest graduates, Dave wants to make teaching a "noble profession" (his words, not mine), and only allow those with a 2:2 honours degree or higher access onto the PGCE (teacher training) course. I say funding, but that is probably too much to hope for. I believe financial incentive is the phrase used. Trainee teachers already receive a small tax free bursary worth between £4,000 and £9,000 depending on the subject, so how much more financial incentive is Cameron intending - or able - to offer to get the "best" graduates on board? Why don't those undertaking a B.Ed degree receive financial support, such as those on NHS degrees do (currently funded places plus bursaries for some courses)? Surely by making teaching specific degrees free, we won't be left with hundreds of newly qualified teachers struggling under huge amounts of student debt possibly choosing to work in the private sector as a way of affording to live. We already have a long list of shortage subjects that attract the highest bursaries for trainee teachers, so surely by restricting the number of eligible wannabe teachers all that will happen is that the list will grow... and grow... and grow...

As a parent with two school age sons - one at primary and one at secondary level - I am all for ways to improve the quality of teaching. I have generally been happy with the teaching my boys have received over the years, although I have had some minor complaints. My worst bugbear is teachers who spell words wrongly, or - even worse - have poor grammar. These people are teaching my children to read and write, so should have to undertake at least a National Literacy test at level 2 (used for adult learners) to make sure they know how to spell and to use apostrophes correctly, even when teaching Key Stage 1 learners! It is a sad fact, and one I see every day when reading through CVs and wincing at the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, that having a degree no longer means you have a high level of literacy. I have seen CVs from degree-educated professionals who can barely string a coherent sentence together! I am a teaching assistant for an adult literacy class one night a week - and incidentally HAD to take my own level 2 Literacy test before I was allowed to practise (I passed, thanks for asking) - and spend time tutoring them in the use of commas, full stops, apostrophes etc. I certainly don't expect a paid, fully qualified teacher to have the same problems with the English language as my students.

That aside, the quality of experienced and child-oriented teachers is generally high. And therein lies the crux of the matter - experience. Yes, we shouldn't allow the educationally challenged to train and teach our precious children, but surely experience and aptitude should mean more than merely a number on the bottom of your degree certificate? If Cameron really wants to recruit only the creme de la creme into the profession, why not target those holding a 2:1 or above? Or even only a First? Back in the old days, teachers didn't even need formal qualifications. Nobody would dream of suggesting a return back to this practice, but surely Cameron has to consider bringing those with at least some experience of working with children in an educational setting (e.g. teaching assistants) into the profession without the need for a 2:2 degree, or even a degree at all. We were discussing this at my Tuesday morning college class, where we are all studying to work with adults in the Skills 4 Life programme (teaching literacy, numeracy and ESOL courses). As a group of mainly middle-class, intelligent women who give our time for free to help tutor adults, it seems unfair that only a couple of us would be eligible to enter teacher training courses, even though it is something that a high percentage of the class want to do in the future. So any of us considering teaching under-16s have to consider applying to undertake a degree course. But none of us can afford to pay the fees, or the childcare, or to give up our jobs to study full-time.

It seems there are a whole raft of people who would love to teach, yet are excluded under current guidelines, and this is set to be even worse under possible Tory rule. Now, I dispute the idea that I am less intelligent, less able and less "noble" than a 21-year-old graduate whose only teaching experience is theoretic or under a controlled placement as part of a course plus the year's PGCE/ training. Experience, age and having my own children doesn't make me MORE qualified or suited to teaching than everyone else, but surely this must count for something? At secondary level, of course those who excel in their specialist subject are best placed to teach - personally, nothing in this world would make me able to teach science or maths (unless Stephen Hawking offers to be my brain donor).

Yes, Dave - there must be a process put in place to ensure that the best teachers are picked out and trained to give the next generation the education they deserve, but is this the only way? If the Tories really want to improve the education system, they could give it a damned good overhaul. If teachers didn't have to spend hours filling in paperwork to prove that they are following the ever-changing National Curriculum, or to pander to the whims of the Ofsted inspectors, or dealing with troublesome pupils, they could get down to the real job at hand - actual teaching! If the pointless bureaucracy was removed, if headteachers got the support they needed to deal with problem children and received funding for more specialist teachers then surely this would go a long way towards solving the issues.

If Cameron really wants to make teaching a prestige profession, then the way teachers are treated and supported by government needs to change. Fast-tracking professionals who are looking for a career change is one way that he has mentioned (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this already in place?), which is useful, especially for those who have business or industry based people and communication skills. But he shouldn't forget the people who DON'T have the requisite degree to prove their intelligence and diligence - the dedicated and experienced teaching or learning support assistants, or the unpaid mums and dads who volunteer their time in the classroom to help educate our children - the people who are sometimes the backbone of the education system that won't fund enough paid teachers or classroom assistants, or even enough educational materials. Surely these people have a great deal to offer, but without having "proven" ability - although personally I disprove that a degree proves the ability to do anything rather than study a subject at a high level - they will never be given the opportunity to teach as a career.

Although I'm sure Dave will be quite happy for them to carry on teaching our children for free.

Social media in recruitment - a Twitter virgin's guide...

2010-01-15T05:03:00.000-08:00

With the second Social Media in Recruitment Conference booked for April and boasting speakers from both Google and LinkedIn, it is only a matter of time before recruiters who don't become involved with this newfangled idea will start to miss out. Who would have thought that networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook would provide such great opportunities for recruitmenting, whether it is collecting candidates or getting in touch with past and potential clients? LinkedIn has always been the professional face of social networking, as has Ecademy, but now recruiters - both agency-side and internal - are starting to reap the real benefits of getting their backsides in gear and jumping on the more social side of the social media bandwagon.

I bravely volunteered to become the Mobilus social media guru, ignoring the fact that I have only ever used Facebook before to spy on people I went to school with, and make myself feel
a) superior because I have a better life/ job/ pair of children than them, or b) envious because they have a better life/car/ looking partner than me. That's what it's for. But it is also for the serious business of developing candidate pools, and promoting your consultancy to clients. In order to get MY backside into gear, firstly I had to start my blog. What to write about, how to write it, would anyone want to read it? - these kept me awake at night. Then I decided just to jump straight in, see what was going on in the high falutin' world of recruitment. But that would be a bit one-dimensional, so I decided to try and write about the markets that we recruit IN, namely marketing and I.T. Ignoring the fact that I am no expert in either, I realised to my surprise - though not to anyone
else's - that I could manage to find an opinion on anything. So the blog you read now was born.

My next step was to discover Twitter, then work out how to use it. Luckily, I have a 12-year-old, so he showed me. Then I had to figure out how to follow people, and who to follow. I didn't want to follow friends, or bands, or anything that would Tweet unsuitable content to me (marriage problems, binge drinking, swear words etc). Keeping in touch with the industry we work in as well as for is an obvious, as is following publications and professional groups. Amazingly, I have collected some followers, and fingers crossed, will continue to do so. It might be my fascinating Tweets, or my lovely picture, or even this blog, or just that people will follow anyone. I haven't quite got the hang of working it all out yet. Where's my son?

(For more information on social media and recruitment from actual, proper, qualified people, check out Peter Gold at Hire Strategies http://www.hirestrategies.co.uk/ or the training course from Recruitment Matters http://www.recruitmentmatters.com/)

Call centres with conscience...

2010-01-11T04:00:00.001-08:00

Call centres have gained a bit of a bad reputation over the past few years. From cheesy music when on hold for what seems an age, untrained or rude call handlers, silent marketing calls and automated call handling that you never manage to get the hang of, to the biggest gripe amongst UK users - offshore call centres, and the associated problems (which I won't go into now!)

All things considered, altruism isn't the first thing that pops into your head when you think "call centre". So it is heartwarming to read about ways in which this industry does give something back to the community. Sports Relief, for example, is asking call centres to volunteer their time and resources to handle their telephone campaign during this year's TV show (Friday 19th March). In 2008, over 70 call centres across the country helped raise £28m for UK and International Projects. This year, Sports Relief are looking for call centres who are willing to commit to offering at least seventy staffed lines for the night (from 7pm-2am). It seems likely that the call centres will step up again this year, after the phenomenal success of last year.

I have also read in Call Centre Focus that social enterprise has hit the industry, with the launch of a new £1m call centre business, Call Brittania. Founded by Karen Derby, it aims to open ten UK call centres in the next 7 years, creating 10,000 jobs for the unemployed in some of the country's worst economic areas - as well as offering them training, skills and work experience. Karen says, "We're passionately committed to providing sustainable work opportunities for those who need it most," and I'm sure I am not alone in wishing the venture huge success for 2010 and beyond.

And so, whilst the UK has been hit by the crippling recession, and ensuing redundancies, perhaps there has been at least some small rays of sunshine to come out of it. Social enterprise - businesses with a conscience - have been growing steadily, with new ones being formed all the time. The New Year Honours list this year included several awards for social entrepreneurs, including an OBE for Nigel Kershaw, CEO of Big Issue Invest, finally recognising the contribution social enterprises make to the wider community as well as the economy. Let's hope this trend continues, and with call centres well placed to offer support to social enterprise, and showing willing to, perhaps they will gain a new reputation. We can only hope.

Demand for business oriented IT professionals high for 2010...

2010-01-06T05:17:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year to you all! Assuming the snow hasn't dampened your fervour for work, I hope 2010 will be a good year for you career-wise, whether you are happy to stay where you are or preferring to move off to pastures green(er). If you are thinking of (or have already started) looking for a change of scenery in the IT sector, then you may find things have changed - it seems there is a shift in the types of skills employers are now seeking from their technical experts going foward into 2010 and beyond.

According to an article in Computer World, technical skills are no longer the be all and end all of a techie's experience and abilities. Whilst security, virtualization and cloud computing are in the most highly sought after skillset, there is now the real requirement for industry specific knowledge. Following last year's recession and the impact on IT jobs, businesses are again taking on staff and rebuilding their departments. What's changed is that they are now seeking business-facing people - IT and business are no longer separate entities of the same organisation, and IT professionals are expected to use their market expertise to boost the all important bottom line. Vertical industry knowledge, especially in healthcare, finance and insurance, will be especially useful, as will experience in business processing and re-engineering. The most important skill, it seems, is to have a combination of deep technical skills combined with project management and business knowledge. Sounds like companies are looking to combine three roles into one, and as competition is high, they will probably be able to attract candidates with the desired depth and breadth of experience. The question is, will they be prepared to pay a premium for it? Only time will tell.

UK ahead in Digital Marketing

2009-12-18T05:32:00.000-08:00

A report by Ofcom (16/12/09) reveals that the UK is "officially one of the world’s most advanced countries when it comes to digital communications", according to Marketing Week. Good news for digital marketers - they can continue to take advantage of the already existing array of digital media. The marketing industry has recognised that interaction between online and offline needs to be stepped up to keep in control of communications in this ever-changing technological world. ITV's hugely successful online monetisation of the ever-popular (if contentious, and possibly responsible for most Saturday and Sunday night rows in the UK over the past few months) X Factor is proof of the massive impact of digital media. A record 19m people tuned into the final, and ITV have reported that their X Factor page saw an average increase of hits, unique users, and video views - the latter up 61% from last year. Securing online sponsorship from TalkTalk and Kleenex, ITV also managed to keep up the growing interest in the weekend TV shows. It's all about the brand. And best of all, an ITV Player Facebook App is due out any time now, to bring the digital domination full circle. It won't be on MY Christmas wishlist, but what do I know? It's obviously the way to go, and it won't be long before other organisations jump on the bandwagon - it works!

Want to know the top digital marketing strategies for 2010? Look no further. Last Exit (a Digital Strategy, Marketing and Design agency) have told UTalk Marketing theirs, which include: Facebook replacing personal email, mobile commerce really starting to kick off, services like Facebook Connect and OpenID enabling us to have one log-in for every site, self-efficiency through networking, crowd sourcing and info-art (capturing and visualising information in an artistic fashion). It's sounding good! Social network sites will of course continue to be a massive source of information, sharing knowledge and promoting your brand, as well as enabling marketers to keep an eye on what's on trend out there. The people have perhaps never had so much consumer power - with the ability to instantly send a message out to potentially thousands of people around the globe, each of us can have some influence on what, and how, we buy.

If digital marketing is going to continue to grow in 2010, then it seems that the marketers will need to up their game and deliver even more in terms of reaching, persuading and retaining their target markets. But the means are out there, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Rachel Lawrence

Apparently almost half of UK employees are looking to move on in 2010...

2009-12-10T02:28:00.001-08:00

According to an article in Recruiter Magazine, nearly 50% of people in the UK are planning to change jobs next year. 42% will be actively seeking a new role, and 22% are already feeling more confident about their prospects in 2010. Whether these figures encompass the same jobseekers (e.g. do some of the active jobseekers also feel they have the mojo when it comes to finding a new role), is not clear - although I suspect that these figures must cross somewhere... it seems to follow that to seek a new role one must be feeling pretty confident about one's prospects, and that to feel confident about moving on would be a major reason for actually looking at new opportunities. Any statisticians out there might be able to make more sense of these figures, but from a recruiter's point of view, the most important point seems to be the percentage of people out there who are eager and willing to consider a change of job in the coming year.

As for industry figures, Recruiter reports that there are high levels of workers in both financial and banking services (63%) and sales, marketing and media (61%), who will be seriously considering a sideways, onwards or upwards move in 2010. As a consultancy who deal mainly with sales and marketing roles, this news is very positive for us, especially following what has been a rather candidate-dry last few quarters!

However, I shall be exercising a modicum of reserve before getting too excited. On the face of it, the figures are very encouraging, and would point to an upturn in recruitment opportunities for both clients and candidates as well as recruiters themselves. But - and it's a big but - figures can be misleading, especially in this industry. People are likely to say, when asked, that they would consider moving on, or are going to be actively seeking new roles. However, this doesn't always mean they are. If asked, of course most of us would agree that, should a really tempting opportunity present itself, then we would consider it. This doesn't mean that a) it will or b) we really will. How many candidates have we all spoken to who have posted their CV on every job board going, apply for every job that appeals for them, enthuse with us over the phone and assure us they are interested in interviewing for their dream role... only to withdraw prior to interview or even offer, because they don't really feel ready to move on, and were reacting to a bad week at work, or a row with their boss, rather than seriously job hunting? How many of those who claim to be feeling more positive about their prospects will actually be looking for new roles - as opposed to sitting on the fence waiting to see how things go in their current job, before tentatively having a look around for something that might be better? This will only be something that becomes clear when us recruiters start to speak to candidates, and get a proper feel for the real intentions and aspirations of the 42% of those who say they are ready to move on. Hopeful, it is - realistically translating into business and placements? Only time will tell.

Read the original article here: http://www.recruiter.co.uk/nearly-half-plan-to-move-jobs-in-2010/1003739.article

Rachel Lawrence