Author Topic: "They apply for jobs hundreds of miles away, but they're still workshy" - DM  (Read 1809 times)


  • Gold Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
I thought I'd copy and paste this Daily Mail article, as an example of just how desperate this 'newspaper' is to vilify those on benefits.

I won't bother trying to point up its inconsistencies - I'll give others the fun of spotting them (a pretty easy job, actually).

100 applied for a job at my firm – but not one decided to take it: Businesswoman blasts 'time-wasting'  job centre staff for helping unemployed 'tick boxes' to keep benefits

A businesswoman has criticised ‘useless’ JobCentre staff who directed 100 applicants to her – but none was interested in a job.

Jean Rasbridge said the service was ‘wasting everyone’s time’ after candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired. She claims the Government-run centres were simply helping the unemployed to ‘tick boxes’ so they could keep their benefits.

Mrs Rasbridge, who co-founded a firm that sells electronic cigarettes, was initially pleased to receive almost 100 applications for an £8-per-hour post as a warehouse packer.

But of the seven jobseekers Mrs Rasbridge invited for an interview, only two showed up.

And even the one candidate who was offered the position failed to turn up. Last night she said her firm had stopped using the JobCentre to find staff after their ‘nightmare’ experience.

‘I found the JobCentre completely useless and other people in our industry say the same thing,’ she said.
‘The applicants who applied were obviously just ticking boxes to keep their benefits.

‘It was a complete waste of time for them, the JobCentre and for us.

‘They weren’t interested in working for us, even when we showed an interest in employing them.’
Problems began in August last year when the firm,, placed an advert with a JobCentre in Gorseinon, Swansea.

After sifting through the candidates – some of whom came from as far as Glasgow and Peterborough – Mrs Rasbridge realised few had any intention of working.

‘By the end of the second day we had getting on for 100 applications from all walks of life – people with PhDs, teachers, lecturers, some of them from quite a distance away,’ she added.

‘We had one from Glasgow, another from Peterborough, but then it suddenly clicked with me that they were just filling in the forms to retain their benefits.’
Under rules introduced last October, jobseekers can lose their benefits for up to three years if they repeatedly refuse to actively seek or be available for work.

Mr Rasbridge said the Government should make it less attractive for jobseekers to claim handouts.

‘When they’ve got to get up at 8am, catch a bus to work and stay until 5pm, there is not much incentive to do so when they are managing well on various benefits,’ she said. ‘It’s too much like hard work.

‘They would be better off saying: “Look, I don’t want to work, just give me the money”, it would stop everyone wasting their time.

‘When we advertise privately we aren’t inundated with applicants, but they are of a much better quality – they actually turn up for an interview.’

A JobCentre spokesman said advisers work hard to help people off benefits and into a job.

‘It is only right that jobseekers should do everything they can to find work if they want to claim Jobseekers’ Allowance and our advisers will work with them to ensure they apply for jobs which suit their skills and experience,’ he said.


  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7373
I've just been reading about this on another site. In addition to the poor pay (After tax, £8.00 per hour doesn't leave a prospective employee much to take home), the warehouse is apparently off a B road in the middle of nowhere, with little in the way of public transport access.

Hardly surprising that no-one decided they could take the job.


  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
I see the DM's grasp of statistics is just as good as ever. The woman only invited 7 people out of the 100 applicants for an interview, so no-one can say anything about the character of the other 93.

The article also says that she was thinking in terms of benefit box-ticking while she was "sifting through the candidates," i.e. before offering anyone an interview. If she was rejecting highly-educated people from further away solely on the basis of that prejudice, she probably shot herself in the foot with her own selection process.


  • Charter Member
  • Gold Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • This Is My Blog

She could have had such a valid point about the futility of JC+ forcing jobseekers to apply for unsuitable work at non-commutable distances. I cannot understand why she went off on the 'workshy' tangent.

I'd love to know how many of the seven candidates she invited to interview - presumably these were the "best" local candidates with the most attractive CVs and the stated ability for an immediate start - didn't show up because they'd already been offered a job from the places where they'd interviewed the week before, or the week before that. I mean, it's not like a jobseeker applies for one crappy job and then sits eagerly by the phone ignoring all other job adverts until they get the refusal.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
It seems also Daily mail want to villify the ( government run)  job centres,  just to leave way for more agencies which by the way also get government money only more of it as their private firms just like atos


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
what's happened to my fonts I can't read as very small


  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2838
"what's happened to my fonts I can't read as very small."

I'm having a similar problem, but the keyboard-trampling cat is to blame. I love it when she does that.

As for the 'story' - bitter bosses, don't you just love em?