Recruitment, can't believe how hard it is!

[Sunnydawn]

I read and hear so much about people wanting flexible working, and how so many people are stuck in dead end jobs, or on zero hours contracts.

But, I am involved in recruitment for two jobs right now, one a professional job in a lovely environment, as a part time job share. The other, a part time, flexible, admin job, again in a lovely office, with training and a good career if you want it.

And no decent applicants! No applicants for the first. Loads who have applied for the latter, but ecan't even attempt the basics forvan interview or trial (ie. turning up in time, dressing half smart, answer a phone).

Frankly, I despair. What are people doing? Where are they working/wanting to work?

These are different places, by the way, so it's not the particular environment.

The job minimum wage op?

I feel your pain flopsy!

Dh runs a small business and has been advertising for someone for 6 months. The job is to simply answer phones and do basic sales. We are in the north west and the pay is 25K which is better than comparable jobs in this area. Hardly anyone applied some that have just haven't bothered to turn up for interview.

A month or two ago the used s recruitment agency to find what seemed like the perfect person. He started a week ago - he was sacked yesterday because he was lying about pretty much everything - not turning up and had stolen £300 of company money. - I mean WTF is wrong with people ! They just want someone to answer the goddamn phones!!

But from my perspective (and I am a PA now) that is the route I will take into project management when I have got the experience. Everyone moves up into the next role when people retire/move on.

I would love a part time job.

Rebel - the comments are based on people's experience of what they see. Of course they aren't suggesting that every single person currently looking for work cannot spell! But there has been a real decline in some basic skills over the last 10-15 years; I've noticed it when recruiting as have others. There are good and suitable candidates out there but it's becoming harder to find them.

We have spent nearly a year trying to fill a position. 20 hours, work from home, very flexible. Decent pay. Hardly anyone applied and they were rubbish. We did then advertise on mn jobs and have employed as a result. We still only had 4 applicants!

I find there is ageism. Especially with agencies. Although older. I was a Marketing Manager with large budget. I have arranged hundreds of events but now just want a part time job. It's impossible!

Such an enlightening thread. It seems that there is a real problem and both "sides" of the recruitment process are trying to deal with it.

I am on the "looking" side. The endless application forms that take forever, the ageism, the low money - although I will work for min wage.

I applied for part time weekend job in the local library. Because it was LA it had to be a "fair" - so it had to be advertised nationally, (internationally in fact as it was on Indeed among other sites). 8 hours a week - either Sat or Sunday at any one of three local libraries - £9 p hr. Perfect for a local person, young parent, older person with caring resp, student..

They had hundreds of applications. Hundreds. From everywhere. The form was pages long including long sections on employment history and diversity monitoring forms. It cost a fortune to administer this.

Many people had applied just to prove they were "trying" and so avoid JSA sanctions.

Why not just put a notice in the library, recruit a local who actually uses the service and knows the library and the area? Because it is an LA job and would be discriminatory to do so. But the cost!! The inefficiency, and the waste of time for all those who applied and had a 1 in 500 chance of getting it. Mad

Top tips : if you want a part time job apply for full time ones and negotiate when they love you. Hundreds of men do this all the time, they have projects, hobbies, other companies and own businesses they run whilst in well paid jobs. You mention a child you won't get it, say you want to lecture two days a week at the local uni corporations will accommodate.

Play the game.
Second tip, Do not mention your children. I gave in the past spent more time talking about my childcare arrangements than my skills. Completely illegal. If you feel you didn't get the job because of your kids, do the next woman a favour and email asking to see the interview notes from all candidates to prove they asked the men the same questions. If nothing else it'll kick their arses because they simply cannot do this in 2016.
If I'm asked about my kids I completely ignore the question.

Application forms, bugger that. Phone the person recruiting directly. Everyone should be on LinkedIn, it'll be easy to find the hiring manager. If the application form is essential I'll fill that in after I've got the job.

Be assertive they are not doing you a favour allowing you to work for them, it's s two way street. Equally if you need interview practice and are given feedback take it onboard, it's not because recruiters like the sound of their own voice, many of them are in the job because they love the buzz of seeing somebody land their dream job.

Good post badknee.

In fact I think there have been a lot of insightful comments on this thread.

I work in education, and I agree with a lot of the comments about the lack in basic skills, sense of entitlement etc among some young people. (Mind you I'm not convinced basic skills were ever hugely better- I suspect huge swathes of young people had problems with literacy and numeracy in the past, but we never heard so much about it, and anyway there were many more manufacturing and other jobs which many of these people could do very well and which afforded them a decent living.

Then I look around me at the education system and I despair... teachers seem to be working as hard as ever (I average around 50 hours a week and I know that's a lot less than some) yet the constant moving of goalposts, change of systems, relentless pressure on youngsters... is it any wonder many of them switch off?

And then I look at our recent struggles with recruitment for non teaching posts in my school - SMSAs, LSAs, lab technicians (I've been involved in some of the recruitment process) You would think on the surface that these would be attractive posts from
The viewpoint of term time school hours, no high level qualifications needed... yet it's really hard to recruit. Fewer than 16 hours? Forget it. Over 16 hours? Hmm, you might get a bit of interest if it's not too far over, but sadly, many people want to manipulate the system to their advantage and work the 'magic' 16 hours but not a lot more.

So the system is widely at fault too. I am a big fan of the universal wage concept, whereby if you work, what you earn is added on top of a basic 'wage' paid to all. The more hours you work, the more money you keep. Unfortunately the tax credit system, although well intentioned, has backfired massively. As someone said early in the thread, many people don't respect the concept of work any more. Society as developed a sense of entitlement whereby many people see a job as something to be tailored around their precise wants, and if it doesn't meet their precise criteria (e.g. 'Don't want to work Mondays/ Fridays', 'don't want to have to pay for an hour of after-school club for my child', 'don't want to start work at 8.30', ' I want no less than 16 but no more than 20 hours') then they don't want to know.

Not everyone of course, but many people. All the above comments in the brackets are quotes from people who've shown an initial interest in the jobs I mentioned.

What's the job and pay ivy? I know someone who's looking for PT wfh.

And yy re previous illiteracy simply being hidden. By any estimate, there are millions of adults in the UK who are functionally illiterate and they're not all young. But until fairly recently, there were loads of jobs where you could hide it. The skillsets needed for work have changed much faster than the education system. I'm early 30s, so younger than the majority of the workforce, and I got just about no useful IT education at school. We did some lessons, but I didn't understand and didn't leave equipped for the workplace in that respect. And that's early noughties.

Not sure I agree about not respecting the concept of work any more, though. I won't take any job that doesn't offer the hours and working arrangements I want. However, I offer experience in a scarce field, dedication and frankly rather high quality. Why, exactly, shouldn't people make enquiries with employers about whether they can come to a mutually agreeable arrangement? If you just think people claiming benefits shouldn't be able to have a choice, say that, but say you're talking about something that crosses society as a whole. Why does the definition of respecting the concept of work have to include anything more than exchanging one's fair labour for fair pay?

The problem I see is that people won't commit because they feel trapped, they always are thinking there is something better paid and in health care all everyone does is complain about the wages. Yes they aren't great in some senses but I am not sure you can put a price on stability also the training and learning opportunities.

If you don't like a job then don't stay, find something else I do agree. But nowadays it just seems like people just want what doesn't exsist - constant acknowledgement that they are worth more than they are paid. I could get £10k more if I commuted into the city, and I do work that's out of my pay grade but I also work very close to home it suits my family and it's stable. That's worth the lower pay in my eyes.

TBH I think maybe people wanting acknowledgement they're worth more than they're paid might have something to do with a race to the bottom wrt conditions...

I suspect huge swathes of young people had problems with literacy and numeracy in the past, but we never heard so much about it, and anyway there were many more manufacturing and other jobs which many of these people could do very well and which afforded them a decent living.

I agree... my experience from working in education is that standards haven't got worse, just that more/most jobs require a decent level of English and maths than they did 20 years ago.

Hyacinth- if you can offer a particular skill set and qualities which enable you to call the shots then of course there's no problem in matching that with a post that matches your personal wants.

I was referring to posts such as LSA or other support roles in a school. For example, We had one person enquire about an LSA role who wanted mondays and Fridays off for long weekends! Even in a job share scenario imagine the difficulty and expense of trying to recruit someone to work just mon and fri. Also had a candidate for that job who wasn't prepared to pay for 30 mins of after school care 2 days a week for her own child (disclaimer: her child is at one of our feeder primaries which has a subsided after school club)

I think examples like that show a sense of entitlement. If those people had been serious about wanting to work they'd have been prepared to make the relatively small compromises necessary in the real world

There isn't more money to pay people when companies/organisations are suffering from the effects of poor staffing levels/the expense of constantly re-recruiting and re training new people. It's a double edged sword. I completely agree that many public sector jobs are underpaid but this isn't going to change any time soon. People should be acknowledged of their worth but is 'worth' becoming something unobtainable? If I was to ask someone what their worth was would it be unrealistic? Are we in a society that is almost standstill because we want what we can't have?

I'd love to find such a job.

I'm a recent graduate with a Degree (2:1) in business with contract law and desperately looking for a flexible job. I had twins during my final exams week and have been nominated by my Dean for a commitment to studies award and gifted a scholarship if I want to go back and do my masters. My babies are 7 months now and I'm looking for part time / flexible work and can't find anything or even get an interview. I'm a damn hard worker. I was an estate agent for a few years before uni and an executive PA for a year on placement at a FTSE 100 and can I get work? No!! Probably where I live but still!!

People should be acknowledged of their worth but is 'worth' becoming something unobtainable?

Very possibly, but I don't think this is a question that can be answered without also discussing why this might be. If we're in a standstill because we want what we can't have, why is the answer to that us learning to eat more shit?

Myusername I think you might be on stronger ground with the long weekend than the after school childcare example.

I don't think I made any points about childcare but I agree that we need to ask why, perhaps it will take almost a collapse of some organisations to get there. This is where my organisation is now. You cannot employ Band 5 nurses or physios, even part time. So it needs to be addressed as to the why, because overseas recruitment isn't even working and is very expensive. What is the answer? I don't know. People can get more money working for an agency but its crippling the NHS, so there is less money for substantive, less patient safety etc.
Worth can be measured in more than just money, can we offer other things?

Apologies yes the after school club was munstermonch girl not you, entirely my fault.

I agree there are things that organisations can offer that may be worth more than money to a potential employee, indeed my family place work/life balance and the ability to spend a lot of time with children ahead of purely financial considerations. Personally, I'll take a lower salary in exchange for an easier commute, or more suitable hours.

However.... that's not true for everyone, and nor does it have to be. People aren't doing something wrong if they prioritise money over flexible hours, any more than they are if their choice is vice versa. And it can only happen when taking other things instead of cold hard cash won't leave you unable to pay the bills. Obviously there are people who don't have any option but to prioritise wage over everything even if they might prefer not to.

It was me who gave those examples. Personally I think there's something very wrong in society where someone purporting to want work as a LSA isn't prepared to consider the job unless they can have every Monday and Friday off, or unless they can avoid paying a very small sum of their earnings for an hour a week childcare.

I think more and more places now recognise the appeal of flexible working but still people feel undervalued and underpaid, so even that's not enough!

It's never ending cycle. It drives me bonkers! I do think that there are clearly more sensible people who can see the pay off - I earn less but my work/life balance is excellent whereas earning more I would have less of a good balance whereas a lot of people want both - fantastic pay with flexible working etc. It's not very realistic in a lot of Instances especially unskilled, unqualified jobs.

Have to say flexible hours, job shares etc are still very much seen as 'new dangled' and particularly geared towards women in less urban areas. There's not only more jobs in cities the employers are more open to different ways of working.

Not wanting to use childcare isn't necessarily about money, though. I have used paid childcare and likely will again, so I'm in no way against it. But it's been dictated by what I felt were the best interests of my DC not a need for them to be looked after while I worked. This has been partially luck, partially choice. But if I didn't think the after school club would suit mine, for whatever reason, I wouldn't be using it even if the place were free. There are plenty of people who think like me.

When those people are instead choosing to rely/rely more on benefits, I can see the argument against it (though one can't assume even an applicant for an NMW role would be). But am struggling to see why there's something inherently wrong with valuing one's preferred arrangements for children over an employer's preferred arrangements for working, which is what seems to be implied here. What do you think the very wrong thing is?