National Service re-introduced next?

Continuing the "nanny state" theme, this story made me laff today. Maybe we'll get government sponsored clones actually doing the interviews for the jobless next...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Sunday Times
March 04, 2007
Free haircuts to help jobless
Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor

TONY BLAIR is to pay private companies and charities to push the hardcore jobless into work, with an American-style scheme offering help such as free haircuts, suits and tattoo removal.

Claimants who refuse to accept the help, or drop out of their jobs after fewer than three years, could lose their benefits.

The scheme is being overseen by John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, and is said to enjoy the “enthusiastic” support of the prime minister. The aim is to cut the government’s £70 billion welfare bill.

The government is particularly concerned about the number of people who either refuse to take jobs, or secure jobs through government agencies only to give up and fall back into benefits dependency within weeks.

A spokesman for Hutton said: “We are talking about [something] as basic and effective as taking someone to buy a suit. Or, if their hair is all over the place, an organisation might arrange to take them to the hairdresser.” Free travel to job interviews is also being considered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL...perhaps they can let a part of the Job Centre office to Toni and Guy.

although I thought they already have some kind of scheme for travel to job interviews

Dunno, H but the removal of tattoos is an interesting concept. Are the government inferring that they are anti-social in which case, who will be first to take their case to the Court of Human Rights?

I find the correlation between appearance and suitably for a job often offensive. Yes, you need to be clean and tidy. Dressed appropriately - no high heels on the construction site, or teachers in spandex shorts. And not have an expletive tatooed to your forehead. But this whole short, back and sides, suit and tie culture is so backward it frequently irritates me. If the PM wants to have a green perm I don't care, so long as he's doing his job properly. I happen to think he isn't doing his job properly and that clean cut, suit and tie approach has helped him get where he is and continue to get away with it.

Yours,
Peed off!



Travel to interview money - good idea.

marandina wrote:

Dunno, H but the removal of tattoos is an interesting concept. Are the government inferring that they are anti-social in which case, who will be first to take their case to the Court of Human Rights?

We cannot have VISIBLE tattoos or extreme of hair colours where I work...pretty normal really for the industry..

A lot of people get tattoos when they are younger, and then regret doing so..that said, I don't think it is the government's responsibility to have them removed!

On the other hand, where hubby works (Games Workshop HQ) the "freakier" the look the better!

(No offence intended )


did anyone see the show the other week - forget the name, but something like "Ten years younger". It was a guy with long hair, long beard, growing grey, and dressing like he did in the 1980s (he was mid 30s or so, and looked closer to 50). at the end of the show, he looked completely different, very stylish, and gorgeous (and looked under 30 too..)

I think he realised that "being himself" wasn't working..for himself!

The Polar One wrote:

I find the correlation between appearance and suitably for a job often offensive. Yes, you need to be clean and tidy. Dressed appropriately - no high heels on the construction site, or teachers in spandex shorts. And not have an expletive tatooed to your forehead. But this whole short, back and sides, suit and tie culture is so backward it frequently irritates me. If the PM wants to have a green perm I don't care, so long as he's doing his job properly. I happen to think he isn't doing his job properly and that clean cut, suit and tie approach has helped him get where he is and continue to get away with it.

Yours,
Peed off!

It is about what society expects too. We expect a certain standard of dress when we deal with organisations...regardless of what we might want to believe first appearances DO count..

The Polar One wrote:

Travel to interview money - good idea.

But this isn't new, I don't know why this is news??

It is interesting how "normalisation" applies depending on the circumstances and what the industry is. Of course, we're making assumptions now about tattoos when most, these days, are subtle and usually hidden under clothing. I guess a 7 foot biker with tattoos all down his arms isn't going to get a job at The Ritz but then you have to question who is right: conventional stereo-typing or the person trying to break the barriers of assumption/convention? See the wearing of a cross and the airline case as a recent example?

marandina wrote:

It is interesting how "normalisation" applies depending on the circumstances and what the industry is. Of course, we're making assumptions now about tattoos when most, these days, are subtle and usually hidden under clothing. I guess a 7 foot biker with tattoos all down his arms isn't going to get a job at The Ritz but then you have to question who is right: conventional stereo-typing or the person trying to break the barriers of assumption/convention. See the wearing of a cross and the airline case as a recent example?

If they are hidden under clothing...then they are not usually an issue.

My dress code doesn't allow jewellery either, unless it is worn under clothing..I expect that is the same as BA's, there is no religious bias to it despite what some might infer, there is NO jewellery allowed.

I think that dress standards in business are evolving, there is much more business casual and less business dress nowadays. However, while on a philosophical level I agree that clothes do not maketh a person, at the same time, all society, not just organisations DO make judgements based on first impressions.

I had a boss years ago who always said "Dress for the job you want, not the job you've got"

helencbradshaw wrote:

If they are hidden under clothing...then they are not usually an issue.

My dress code doesn't allow jewellery either, unless it is worn under clothing..I expect that is the same as BA's, there is no religious bias to it despite what some might infer, there is NO jewellery allowed.

I think that dress standards in business are evolving, there is much more business casual and less business dress nowadays. However, while on a philosophical level I agree that clothes do not maketh a person, at the same time, all society, not just organisations DO make judgements based on first impressions.

I had a boss years ago who always said "Dress for the job you want, not the job you've got"

I agree and I get to wear "business casual" (translated as a shirt and no tie) or even just casual so much now than ever before. I still find it interesting where these conventions come from and how rigidly/readily we conform. I often think we feel safer being told what to do rather than having to actually think for ourselves. Bigger picture stuff, I suppose and a bit deep for a Sunday pm maybe. Then again it's p***ing down outside and what else is there to do other than philosophise?

In my current industry (hospitality), we have no chance of doing business casual.

however in the previous industry (Professional solutions/Outsourcing/Telecoms) it was pretty much the norm, and people used their own judgement..i.e. visiting a client or supplier would involve a suit most likely, but sometimes if we had visitors to the office, we might tell them in advance we were business casual, depending on who they were, and what their norms were.

Hubby has never really worn formal work attire, which drives me crackers..! Corporate polo shirts and stuff just don't cut it for me, not constantly.

helencbradshaw wrote:

It is about what society expects too. We expect a certain standard of dress when we deal with organisations...regardless of what we might want to believe first appearances DO count..

I've accepted that. A bigger cultural shift is still needed IMO. Must be why I dislike everybody!
And I agree that certain professions when coming in contact with customers and the public need to narrow what's acceptable more than others.

However, I've had some annoying moments myself. Over the years in interviews, I have been told specifically I would need better shoes, and to cut my hair shorter. Better shoes for a job on a telephone out of site of anyone but colleagues! One office required it's data entry team all to wear shirt, ties etc even though it was again never within miles of any customers. Some companies are just backward.

I've experienced the complete flip side too, of very easy-going workplaces. I have to say it was greatly appreciated, and often a better atmosphere.

My new office is Business Casual, ie can wear a polo shirt etc but I FEEL a lot more professional with my suit on, and recon I will carry on wearing a shirt and tie regardless of my option not to.

drewboy wrote:

My new office is Business Casual, ie can wear a polo shirt etc but I FEEL a lot more professional with my suit on, and recon I will carry on wearing a shirt and tie regardless of my option not to.

I think Drew's on a power trip meself

I hate business casual too.

Got nothing to wear

One of my Italian colleagues at our big business meeting in Prague last week showed up with 5 pairs of shoes, a suit and four pairs of trousers (plus all the other bits and bobs blokes need) and that was his take on 'business casual'.

At risk of offending all women and all Italians, WHY ARE ITALIAN BLOKES SUCH GIRLIES?

drewboy wrote:

My new office is Business Casual, ie can wear a polo shirt etc but I FEEL a lot more professional with my suit on, and recon I will carry on wearing a shirt and tie regardless of my option not to.

I used to have a boss who used to belive that casual dress led to casual work and always insisted on the wearing of suits in his team even though the company policy was smart casual. When the bank got taken over the new Spanish owners were not impressed with the dress code and "encouraged" managers to set an example by wearing suits.

SO much is cultural. On my first business trip to America, in 1995, I was greeted by the CEO in "beach attire"! Same in Australia where the Telstra engineer shows up at your house in long shorts and knee length socks with shoes. Perhaps our corporate fashion sense in Britain ain't so bad, even if we are boring black, and grey and brown.

Sis and Bro in Law emigrated to Bermuda last year, and had to quickly adapt to the bright coloured long shorts Bermudian thing (with a collared shirt and tie...). That's the Bro in Law of course (who had to do that part). Who'd be a Guy..!

I am so pleased my company makes it easy for us!

marandina wrote:

drewboy wrote:

My new office is Business Casual, ie can wear a polo shirt etc but I FEEL a lot more professional with my suit on, and recon I will carry on wearing a shirt and tie regardless of my option not to.

I think Drew's on a power trip meself

Damn right!

helencbradshaw wrote:

SO much is cultural. On my first business trip to America, in 1995, I was greeted by the CEO in "beach attire"! Same in Australia where the Telstra engineer shows up at your house in long shorts and knee length socks with shoes. Perhaps our corporate fashion sense in Britain ain't so bad, even if we are boring black, and grey and brown.

C'mon - psychedelic bermuda shorts rock!!!

I miss my old pair.

The Polar One wrote:

helencbradshaw wrote:

SO much is cultural. On my first business trip to America, in 1995, I was greeted by the CEO in "beach attire"! Same in Australia where the Telstra engineer shows up at your house in long shorts and knee length socks with shoes. Perhaps our corporate fashion sense in Britain ain't so bad, even if we are boring black, and grey and brown.

C'mon - psychedelic bermuda shorts rock!!!

I miss my old pair.

Why not try to find them again?