Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it acceptable for someone on benefits to consider a job as being beneath them?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypercaine.)
    Some people dont get employed because theyre over qualified, as a student I find it quite hard because the company id be working for see me as someone who isnt a long term employee; theyd train me for quite a high cost and then id work for them for a year or two until I graduate in which case it isnt worth them employing me.
    A company wont employ someone whos highly qualified for a non-skilled job, again theres no point; theyll only be looking for somebody else in the next few weeks/months when said person finds an appropriate job which requires their qualifications.

    Obviously if you have a handful of GCSEs then it cant really be below you considering technically no job will be. But in answer to your question, yes it is acceptable and sometimes its not a matter of it being acceptable to the employee but more to the employer.
    It is true that many employers for unskilled jobs might see you as over-qualified and not bother to hire and train you because of that. However, I don't think many supermarkets/shops etc even ask much about your educational background and so simply won't know. In any case, if you're a first or second year student getting a part time job, you will be well worth the costs of training to the employer as they can potentially get at least 1-2 years work from you. Many of the people working in supermarkets/pubs/bars etc are students.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe-89)
    It's not a case of being qualified though is it? I don't think you need to pass an exam to serve people burgers (though maybe you do to flip them ).

    I'm a chemistry graduate who went straight onto JSA after graduating and, after a couple of months, got myself a job working on the tills in M&S. It's barely above minimum wage but preferable to staying on benefits IMO. I'm not going to sit around on benefits and wait for a job that's suited to my degree to fall into my lap...though admittedly in my case it's more to do with the fact that I have absolutely no idea what I want to do career-wise!

    37 hours at minimum wage is over £200 per week (after tax), compared to £53(?) per week on JSA. While I've not taken into account other benefits, in most cases you would probably be better off working than not. Apart from that, the incentive is that you're doing something productive instead of sponging. Not to mention that having a large gap in your CV is surely much worse than "McDonald's Cashier". At least that shows to potential physics-related employers that you're willing to work.
    Aye, I mean with housing benefit and council-tax allowance. I'm just talking about personal experience. I worked as a chef for 6 years, and did a bit or bar work and pub management and it got to the point I just hated my life because it wasn't what I wanted to do. Thats why I went to uni. If I do go on to get a phD (if I can), there's no way I'd go back to doing those jobs; I'd happily be happy, waiting, and living off of the state I paid in to, than being miserable working a dead-end job (for me).
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Based on the bits I've highlighted, it clearly doesn't apply to your mum does it? She is already doing all she can and she clearly would prefer to be working. In my post it says specifically "For most people it still is" I never even hinted everyone on benefits was was loving it and had no desire to work.
    Yes but stating that being on benefits should be something to be ashamed of does effects everyone on benefits? Does it not?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    Yes but stating that being on benefits should be something to be ashamed of does effects everyone on benefits? Does it not?
    No, it affects people who weren't already ashamed. Most people would be embarrassed and ashamed to say they they depend on the state to provide for them and their family, these people are already applying for jobs and would far prefer to be working. They already have the right mentality. The problem is the people who are not ashamed of it, the people who see nothing wrong with complete dependance on the state to provide, the kind of household were not a single person is not a drain on the economy, and not one of them feels embarrassed about it.
    • 91 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nephilim)
    We do have this problem in Australia aswell. So many people who are able to work, simply choose not to and instead just accept welfare payments. Imagine how much more efficient a society could be if everyone actually contributed.
    Seriously? I heard that jobs were easy to get in Australia because apparently their economy is booming?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    No, it affects people who weren't already ashamed. Most people would be embarrassed and ashamed to say they they depend on the state to provide for them and their family, these people are already applying for jobs and would far prefer to be working. They already have the right mentality. The problem is the people who are not ashamed of it, the people who see nothing wrong with complete dependance on the state to provide, the kind of household were not a single person is not a drain on the economy, and not one of them feels embarrassed about it.
    Ok maybe embarrassed is a better word because to me saying someone should be 'ashamed' is saying they've got something to feel guilty. A lot of people are embarrassed for being on benefits but they're not ashamed because they've done nothing wrong.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Let's assume a particular person who is struggling or has come upon hard times is on benefits. That's fair enough. Let's also assume that this particular person is healthy and able bodied. Suppose that they do actively want to work. However, they have certain expectations as to the kind of work they are suited for and the amount of pay they deserve. I would consider this attitude to be a reasonable one to take early on. I would certainly do the same.

    What about 6 months without a "suitable" job though? What about a year? At some point I think a person is morally obligated to take absolutely any job that that does not compromise their moral beliefs or personal safety. That point is probably somewhere between the 6 month and one year time frame. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a person who has allowed their community to support them for half a year is not entitled to reject a job as being beneath their worth or dignity.

    I find it hard to believe when I hear a healthy person state that they have not been able to find any job for a year or more. Don't they mean a job that they are willing to do? If not then what is wrong with them? I truly believe I could fly to London tomorrow, and have a job washing dishes by the end of the week. I I would interview for every menial job available. I would wear a tie. I would make eye contact and be respectful, and I would be willing to do anything. I would get hired. Who can't do that?

    I realize that unemployment is at near 10%. My argument is that if they are not disabled or ill then they are the 10% that are unwilling to do anything. I know I am going to get lot's of love for this post but I want to make one last point.

    I just spent several weeks working in some of the poorest areas of Honduras. There are 5 and six year old kids there selling homemade bread on the streets for pocket change. Those kids are ones who truly can't find any job. Try telling them that cleaning toilets for minimum wage is beneath your dignity.
    Seeing as there are 5 or more people chasing every job, your argument kind of fails.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I actually think it is acceptable in some circumstances. If, for example, a person has unfortunately been made redundant after moving up the career ladder to a management position with a fairly high salary I think they should be allowed sufficient time to seek a commensurate position elsewhere. The corollary in my argument is that you're a school leaver then no job is beneath you.
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by travoot)
    I'm reluctant to enter into a dialogue about the morality of welfarism with an American. Your nation is a disgrace.
    I live in Australia.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherryCherryBoomBoom)
    Seriously? I heard that jobs were easy to get in Australia because apparently their economy is booming?
    We do have pretty low unemployment (compared to other countries), but there are still a lot of lazy people accepting welfare payments (for no good reason) instead of working.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No.

    Although, some people on benefits to have this attitude and they're unashamed of it. It depends on the individual and their circumstances of course but what I can't stand is people who come out of school/college with no much qualifications and then expect everything to be handed to them on a plate.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, we have to change the whole attitude towards how we see employment and how we tackle unemployment - and it is interesting to notice the workshy being hammered again and again only when we are in or coming out of a recession.

    Let us be absolutely clear - Even through the supposed good times we have always had unemployment, so why is it only now we are addressing it?

    Two words - job cutbacks.

    The majority of people who are unemployed in my experience do want to go to work and actively look out for jobs, yet this is being harder, unnecessarily, by the current government. I don't get why it is so hard for them to believe that if you keep cutting jobs as more buisnesses go bust in an attempt to "save the country", you will put more people unemployed.

    I was born in 1994 so I can't possibly empathise with those who were teenagers or adults during the 80s - but, if Labour is predicting correctly, unemployment figures will increase to 3m unemployed, or 1 in 10 adults over 16 - it's highest since the mid 80s.

    Not enough jobs are being created, and there are too many people to fulfil them. It's got to the point where qualifications are near to useless - I often wonder how long will it be before the GCSE introduce the A** grade. The schools and colleges bung us with useless information that is meaningless in the real world.

    More jobs need to be created than lost. Studies have shown people with lower education / unemployed are more likely to commit offenses as "something to do". Work at least gives a sense of pride and something for them to do.

    It's daft to think such extreme autestry measures could possibly bring the Great back into Great Britain - instead, it's taking us back into the dark ages. It's near to impossible to get jobs because places on the lower end of the job scale (bare with me) like McDonald's and KFC are placing unfair requirements on it's applicants.

    Although most definately there is no shame in working at McDonald's, which morally I think gives the leg up on dole-wallowers who can work but choose not to, many Uni leavers who have worked very hard to get somewhere are being forced to get these jobs because there is no future and opportunity for them.

    To some extent, you can perhaps understand why some believe there is no future for them when qualifications range from the spectacularly easy (GCSEs) to the near impossibility of A Levels and University work - and subsequently drop out from them both.

    Qualifications at the end of the day are just a piece of paper - it means nothing unless you can prove you can do something, and do something quite well.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Let's assume a particular person who is struggling or has come upon hard times is on benefits. That's fair enough. Let's also assume that this particular person is healthy and able bodied. Suppose that they do actively want to work. However, they have certain expectations as to the kind of work they are suited for and the amount of pay they deserve. I would consider this attitude to be a reasonable one to take early on. I would certainly do the same.

    What about 6 months without a "suitable" job though? What about a year? At some point I think a person is morally obligated to take absolutely any job that that does not compromise their moral beliefs or personal safety. That point is probably somewhere between the 6 month and one year time frame. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a person who has allowed their community to support them for half a year is not entitled to reject a job as being beneath their worth or dignity.

    I find it hard to believe when I hear a healthy person state that they have not been able to find any job for a year or more. Don't they mean a job that they are willing to do? If not then what is wrong with them? I truly believe I could fly to London tomorrow, and have a job washing dishes by the end of the week. I I would interview for every menial job available. I would wear a tie. I would make eye contact and be respectful, and I would be willing to do anything. I would get hired. Who can't do that?

    I realize that unemployment is at near 10%. My argument is that if they are not disabled or ill then they are the 10% that are unwilling to do anything. I know I am going to get lot's of love for this post but I want to make one last point.

    I just spent several weeks working in some of the poorest areas of Honduras. There are 5 and six year old kids there selling homemade bread on the streets for pocket change. Those kids are ones who truly can't find any job. Try telling them that cleaning toilets for minimum wage is beneath your dignity.
    I think if a person is educated and skilled, they should expect to find a reasonable position. This may sometimes take awhile, depending on how the job market is, but it doesn't mean that we should be rushing people to take any job, because than what will the less educated and skilled do? Frankly, cleaning toilets, is a job for someone who is not trained at anything else, not for a skilled professional who may be temporarily unemployed.
    • 91 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nephilim)
    We do have pretty low unemployment (compared to other countries), but there are still a lot of lazy people accepting welfare payments (for no good reason) instead of working.
    Oh OK. Pretty selfish, eh? Goodness knows the number of unemployed people in the UK who'd love to swap places with them lazy unemployed Aussies (me included)

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 5, 2012
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.