Posted on 01/26/2010 10:42:44 AM PST by Stoat
Recruitment boss Nicole Mamo, 48, tried to post an advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner on her local Jobcentre Plus website.
She ended the job offer by saying that any applicants for the post 'must be very reliable and hard-working'.
But when Ms Mamo called the Jobcentre Plus in Thetford, Norfolk, the following day she was told that her advert would not be displayed.
(edit)
'She said it was because they could have cases against them for discriminating against unreliable people.
'I laughed because I thought that was crazy. We supply the NHS with staff so it's very important for the patients that we have reliable workers.
'We find jobs for hundreds of temporary staff every week and are proud of our workers but our reputation is at stake if they aren't reliable.
'We are taking people off the dole and finding them jobs so not displaying the advert just seems absolutely ridiculous to me.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Not under IngSoc, apparently.
This is satire, right?
It appears to be legitimate....although the website for Devonwood Recruitment is under construction, viewers are referred to speak with Nicole Mamo (featured in the article) for enquiries.
For further enquiries, please contact Nicole Mamo at our Hertfordshire branch on
020 8736 5678
and there are numerous additional web references to this company.
Although I'm not finding additional sourcing for the article, it seems that all of the people and organizations referenced are legitimate, and the premise doesn't seem so terribly farfetched to me, considering how things have been going in the world.
Stop pounding your head. This sort of thing is what causes the old tea pot to boil over. Enough people getting outraged enough makes them change their gubmint back to their government.
It’s happening here, and it can happen there. It might even stop the nitwit propaganda that they’re safer without guns.
Onion? Scrappleface?
The UK Daily Mail.
Please see post #24.
Let’s see now...
If you hire somebody *knowing* that they’re unreliable then you can’t *fire* them for being unreliable, right?
And unreliable people typically don’t show up for work, right?
SO if I get the job then I don’t have to show up and they can’t fire me and I still get paid.
If I don’t get the job then I can sue for discrimination damages and get the money I would have earned by not showing up anyway.
Even I can hold down a job under those circumstances. Sign me up!
“I thought the point of advertising for employees was to get workers who you can rely on..?”
What a quaint, outdated notion. Welcome to Bizarro World, where everything is backward. </DC Comics>
*cough*
Gotta love the PC drek, providing unintentional humor since the mid 90's.
I just hope that the frog hasn’t been boiled too slowly.
The next stage is when unsuccessful applicants begin to sue companies for discriminating against them on the grounds that they are “unreliable”, “incompetent”, or “unqualified”.
They are, although the government doesnt have a monopoly on “employment agencies”.
They are, although the government doesnt have a monopoly on “employment agencies”.
Yeah, me too.
We watch some sort of a UK version of COPs here in Sweden. The cops drive around with tire pressure gauges and measure people's tire pressure when they pull them over. They are serious as a heart attack about it too. Never mind the fact, that every other car they pull over is driven by an illegal.
There is no way back for the UK. I hate to say it but Islam may be an improvement at this stage.
That’s sad. What’s “too low,” and what happens to the occupants when it’s pronounced?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.