What grinds my gears...

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

On 24/08/2023 at 23:33, Leeds Fox said:

There is a range but if it isn’t advertised, the range is no use to a potential candidate.

 

I was ‘job hunting’ for a while recently, uploaded my CV onto CV Library and had my LinkedIn set as Open to Work.

 

10-20 calls a day from recruitment agencies of which the majority were time wasters.

 

Why would I spend my time on calls and video conferences, take time off of work to attend interviews if the recruiter can’t specify a salary range? They want me to interview and be successful as much as I wanted certain jobs, so why not work together? If there’s no discussion on salary, or it starts with what am I looking for when they’re talking about a specific role, it was a non-starter for me. The salary is completely dependant on the responsibilities and expectations of each job on its own merit. For instance, I was looking for a job that fulfilled me, I’d have done one for job for say £45k but wouldn’t have touched another for less than £65k (ignore figures, just using them as an example).

 

The part that really got me is the sales pitch. They’re wanting to put you forward for a role that pays X amount (ironically you don’t know the range, but you know your worth), yet speak to you like a cold caller selling broadband.

 

I understand a candidate is a recruiters product and that they’re essentially salespeople, but mutual respect from the get go and throughout the process is what sets some apart from the herd.

 

In some cases, it almost comes across like they think they’re doing you a favour, when in reality they want the commission and will tart any old role up to get you interested and ultimately through the door.

 

FWIW - I met a few great agents and built a rapport that will hopefully open doors in the future.

 

@Jon the Hat that wasn’t all aimed at you, it just seemed the most relevant post to reply to.

This. If a job didn't have the salary attached I won't apply.

I'll also add if it's an 'office' job that expects you to go into the office too much I also won't apply. We know there's no need for offices now, the cat is out the bag, if they want you in x days a week it's because management are distrustful fools.

 

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

On 27/08/2023 at 17:38, Izzy said:

Yeah based on what you and Jattdogg have said I had a look on Amazon and they're about £30 so worth getting instead of paying £1.50 at the petrol station each time!

They're not quite as good as the petrol station as they're a pain to get off and you lose a bit but I have one and would recommend

[Leeds Fox]

7 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

This. If a job didn't have the salary attached I won't apply.

I'll also add if it's an 'office' job that expects you to go into the office too much I also won't apply. We know there's no need for offices now, the cat is out the bag, if they want you in x days a week it's because management are distrustful fools.

 

To be fair some office jobs do need you in the office but the majority don’t. If they don’t need you in, I agree. 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, Leeds Fox said:

To be fair some office jobs do need you in the office but the majority don’t. If they don’t need you in, I agree. 

I agree that some office jobs need you in the office

[TJQuik]

18 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

This. If a job didn't have the salary attached I won't apply.

I'll also add if it's an 'office' job that expects you to go into the office too much I also won't apply. We know there's no need for offices now, the cat is out the bag, if they want you in x days a week it's because management are distrustful fools.

 

Same thing with pro rata salaries... currently looking for a new job and I couldn't tell you how many roles I've seen that look great with a great salary but you double check and it's a part time job.

[oakman]

Automated texts. Got plenty of money in my account but I receive a text from Barclays at 11.50pm on a Saturday night informing me about changes to my overdraft. Happily receive them in working hours during the week but nearly midnight on a weekend? I don’t know if I’m  being unreasonable but it’s really pissed me off.

[FoyleFox]

9 hours ago, oakman said:

Automated texts. Got plenty of money in my account but I receive a text from Barclays at 11.50pm on a Saturday night informing me about changes to my overdraft. Happily receive them in working hours during the week but nearly midnight on a weekend? I don’t know if I’m  being unreasonable but it’s really pissed me off.

It's not an unreasonable view. Warning texts, low funds, over overdraft etc,  would be acceptable at any time. Not acceptable to be issuing standard messages that late imo.

[LanguedocFox]

In common with quite a lot of people (Paul McCartney, Gordon Brown, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald, to name but a few) I am known by my second name. However, financial organisations and Government Departments insist on calling me by my first name - John. It drives me nuts, especially as my main email address, my signature, my debit card etc all use my second name. I needed to get an updated credit report today, and the first outfit I tried (all done without human intervention of course) wouldn't/couldn't recognise me. Why in the name of sanity is it impossible to choose a 'known as' name? To quote Little Britain, "The computer says no." FFS!

 

Does anyone else suffer like this? And is there a cure?

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, LanguedocFox said:

In common with quite a lot of people (Paul McCartney, Gordon Brown, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald, to name but a few) I am known by my second name. However, financial organisations and Government Departments insist on calling me by my first name - John. It drives me nuts, especially as my main email address, my signature, my debit card etc all use my second name. I needed to get an updated credit report today, and the first outfit I tried (all done without human intervention of course) wouldn't/couldn't recognise me. Why in the name of sanity is it impossible to choose a 'known as' name? To quote Little Britain, "The computer says no." FFS!

 

Does anyone else suffer like this? And is there a cure?

Change your name legally?

[Vacamion]

12 hours ago, LanguedocFox said:

In common with quite a lot of people (Paul McCartney, Gordon Brown, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald, to name but a few) I am known by my second name. However, financial organisations and Government Departments insist on calling me by my first name - John. It drives me nuts, especially as my main email address, my signature, my debit card etc all use my second name. I needed to get an updated credit report today, and the first outfit I tried (all done without human intervention of course) wouldn't/couldn't recognise me. Why in the name of sanity is it impossible to choose a 'known as' name? To quote Little Britain, "The computer says no." FFS!

 

Does anyone else suffer like this? And is there a cure?

 

 

I know you don't want to hear this, but I'm going to tell you anyway 

 

I work in counter-fraud in financial services, and people who use different versions of their name to the name on their passport light up all the wrong flags, because that's exactly what fraudsters do.

 

You'll get "just checking you are who you say you are" contact that the rest of us don't get (delaying applications you make) and, yes, it probably does have a negative effect on financial institutions' willingness to accept you as a customer without checking you out.

 

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if it were easy for people to use a "known as" name, the fraudsters would run riot to an even greater extent than they are already doing, so there is zero chance they are ever going to make it easier.

 

I've come to appreciate that this causes a lot of problems for people from Northern Ireland (where middle names are used more then GB), for women who get married and for people from other cultures with different naming traditions, but it's the fault of the dishonest world we live in that people can't just use different versions of their names without running into problems.

 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Vacamion said:

 

 

I know you don't want to hear this, but I'm going to tell you anyway 

 

I work in counter-fraud in financial services, and people who use different versions of their name to the name on their passport light up all the wrong flags, because that's exactly what fraudsters do.

 

You'll get "just checking you are who you say you are" contact that the rest of us don't get (delaying applications you make) and, yes, it probably does have a negative effect on financial institutions' willingness to accept you as a customer without checking you out.

 

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if it were easy for people to use a "known as" name, the fraudsters would run riot to an even greater extent than they are already doing, so there is zero chance they are ever going to make it easier.

 

I've come to appreciate that this causes a lot of problems for people from Northern Ireland (where middle names are used more then GB), for women who get married and for people from other cultures with different naming traditions, but it's the fault of the dishonest world we live in that people can't just use different versions of their names without running into problems.

 

 

In my job we see and produce a lot of documentation and it always amazes me how many folk just don't seem to be that arsed if their names or other details are just wrong.

 

We're always berating those producing it to make it accurate, which would be easier if the people the documentation was for were actually bothered.

 

I know it's frustrating if you've got a name that's easy to get wrong like I have, but if I didn't have it corrected every time someone cocks it up I don't think I'd know what my name is by now

[The Bear]

I worked with a bloke who's entire family were known by their middle names. Seemed a bit weird to me but never bothered them and he signed his name with his real first initial as well. 

[Vacamion]

 

I don't care how trendy or whatever it is, people who name their kids "J" or "CC" or whatever are just condemning them to a lifetime having to double-check with officialdom and frequently explain to people they meet "Yes, that is my actual name".

 

Poor kids.

 

[lcfc278]

18 hours ago, LanguedocFox said:

In common with quite a lot of people (Paul McCartney, Gordon Brown, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald, to name but a few) I am known by my second name. However, financial organisations and Government Departments insist on calling me by my first name - John. It drives me nuts, especially as my main email address, my signature, my debit card etc all use my second name. I needed to get an updated credit report today, and the first outfit I tried (all done without human intervention of course) wouldn't/couldn't recognise me. Why in the name of sanity is it impossible to choose a 'known as' name? To quote Little Britain, "The computer says no." FFS!

 

Does anyone else suffer like this? And is there a cure?

I'm pretty sure that if Paul McCartney needs to fill in forms for financial organisations and government departments he will have to use his first name as well.

[The Doctor]

On 24/08/2023 at 18:42, The Bear said:

The way to resolve that is make an official complaint. They take stuff like that very seriously and if it happens enough the person involved will get reprimanded. 

 

I was told this by a mate who's worked for RM for a couple of decades. 

Nah, in my experience they lie and claim you're wrong to make the complaint. I sent a Christmas present to a mate through royal mail in 2021, tracked and signed for. Never got delivered, the signature was not theirs or or their husbands (her initial is C, his J, the signature was a big capital G). Raised a complaint and escalated and they just kept coming back saying "well our driver says he delivered it to the right place so no, no compensation for the lost goods"

[Stuntman_Mike]

The media acting as if Maddison has improved his game since leaving us, when really they're just taking more interest because it's a London 'big 6' club.

[Facecloth]

11 hours ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

The media acting as if Maddison has improved his game since leaving us, when really they're just taking more interest because it's a London 'big 6' club.

They do it everytime a player joins a big 6 club. I remember them saying how much Ashley Young had improved after his Manchester United debut like being there a few weeks had suddenly moved him up a level, when really he was already at that level, it's why they bought him.

Edited 6 September 2023 by Facecloth

[RonnieTodger]

This purposely divisive shit about Evan Ferguson. From the usual shit suspects. 
 

Obviously he’s not going to switch to England. 

Edited 6 September 2023 by RonnieTodger

[TJQuik]

3 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

This purposely divisive shit about Evan Ferguson. From the usual shit suspects. 
 

Obviously he’s not going to switch to England. 

Can you fill me in?

[RonnieTodger]

1 minute ago, TJQuik said:

Can you fill me in?

Ferguson can qualify for England through his mum, but he sounds more of a Dubliner than Bono.
 

He’s already played for Ireland. Grew up there and played at all youth levels. 

 

It’s cheap engagement from the likes of Talksport looking to stir up any shit they can with the likes of him, Grealish and Rice. 

[Facecloth]

51 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Ferguson can qualify for England through his mum, but he sounds more of a Dubliner than Bono.
 

He’s already played for Ireland. Grew up there and played at all youth levels. 

 

It’s cheap engagement from the likes of Talksport looking to stir up any shit they can with the likes of him, Grealish and Rice. 

He played a competitive match for Ireland hasn't he, so he couldn't switch even if he wanted to.

[Tommy Fresh]

20 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

He played a competitive match for Ireland hasn't he, so he couldn't switch even if he wanted to.

He wont, but he still could I believe, it's so many competitive caps isn't it

[ALC Fox]

20 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

He played a competitive match for Ireland hasn't he, so he couldn't switch even if he wanted to.

Apparently the threshold is now three matches whether competitive or not. Ferguson has played six so can't switch even in the astronomically unlikely event that he would want to.

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, RonnieTodger said:

This purposely divisive shit about Evan Ferguson. From the usual shit suspects. 
 

Obviously he’s not going to switch to England. 

The Rice and Grealish comparisions are stupid, they are English whereas Ferguson is Irish

[Tommy Fresh]

20 minutes ago, ALC Fox said:

Apparently the threshold is now three matches whether competitive or not. Ferguson has played six so can't switch even in the astronomically unlikely event that he would want to.

I think it is still competitive fixtures is it not