Thursday 13 August 2009

Career advice

Career advice


Limited resources

The government does not put resources into genuinely helping people back to work. All advice is time-limited so it's impossible to get genuine advice about a possible new career direction. In it's way, this is similar to what I hear about going to see a doctor or your local MP. I'm told that they have so many people to see that they often don't have time to give you the best advice. John Redwood, in his blog entry They can’t all be disabled, can they? acknowledges this problem. (Indeed, I learned that if I wanted to see my local MP Peter Soulsby about my blog, I'd be allowed about 10 minutes, so I didn't bother.) Fortunately, my health is good and I never need to see a doctor these days, but others are not so lucky. But those of you who do have to see a doctor or your local MP and sense that you just don't get enough time with them, may understand just a little. Of course, if you are seriously ill and require a lot of attention, you could be sent to hospital where you'll get plenty of attention. There is no equivalent option for unemployed people.

Advisors don't have the time

I'd love to have some genuine advice about alternative careers, based on somebody having the time to completely understand my capabilities. It won't happen because it would cost money. Career advisors would need to spend a lot of time to properly understand my situation and provide meaningful advice. To genuinely help me, an advisor would have to spend at least a day's worth of work and probably much more than that on my case, but not all in one solid period and not all of it with me there. Spread over all long-term unemployed people, even a day's advice would be very expensive unless, of course, they achieved a high success rate.

I believe that at least one American state decided to spend whatever it takes to help unemployed people back to work, but to stop benefit payments after a time-limited period. They didn't save any money because all the money that would have been spent on benefit payments was spent instead on advice and training, but they apparently think that the money is better spent that way. What I don't know is what happens to those people who lose their benefits because they still can't get work within the time limit - a problem that will surely be more critical now. I suspect that they may have to rely on friends and relatives, or failing that, charities.

So far, I haven't heard any proposals for such a scheme to be tried in Britain. Presumably this is because it doesn't save any money and might actually cost more money if it goes wrong, so it's not worth the huge political risk. Actually, I suspect that something like that may be introduced in Britain eventually, but hopefully by then I'll be old enough not to have to worry about it for myself. In any case, if such a scheme were introduced, it would inevitably prioritise younger unemployed people, which wouldn't help me. Nevertheless, I am opposed to any such proposal unless there are adequate safeguards. Not that the current system is perfect, because it isn't and some restructuring of the system may be necessary.

Suspicions prevent full discussion anyway

Another problem is that some advisors suspect that a lot of unemployed people don't want to work. Such advisors believe that some jobs can be done by anybody although I've yet to find a job for which that is true. As a consequence, it isn't wise to be completely open and honest about one's capabilities.

I once gave an abbreviated version of some of my career options to an advisor, who complained about its negativity. The document was based on extracts from Career options in offices, Career options in factories and warehouses, Career options in call centres and retail outlets, Career options in security and Career options elsewhere. I discarded some options altogether (because I didn't think they were important) and removed all the angry stuff (for obvious reasons), leaving just a much-abbreviated assessment of future options. I explained that the document was not a CV, but the advisor didn't seem to understand, protesting that it was negative. Without using it as a starting point, nobody could seriously offer me genuine career advice. A CV is designed for a prospective employer, but is absolutely useless for the type of discussion that I'd like to have with an advisor. I'll revise it again if I feel the need to submit the document to another advisor, but it necessarily sounds more negative than a CV. Actually, I think the bureaucrats who masquerade as advisors are only trained to read a CV and can't cope with a discussion document.

It is easy to see why unemployed people become suspicious of all so-called advisors, not necessarily knowing which ones are sympathetic. While some are openly hostile, others may put on a veneer of sympathy in the hope of trapping the unwary. For me to have a meaningful discussion, I have to be able to discuss my strengths and weaknesses openly and honestly without fearing the consequences of so doing.

Directed to whatever's available

Career advisors therefore push people in the direction of whatever vacancies are available, regardless of my suitability. I was advised to try forklift truck driving. Another person suggested training for security work. I was willing to try, but the conditions imposed were unacceptable.

Contrast with advice to schoolchildren

I only vaguely remember getting career advice in school, but I remember just enough to know that the advisors had a very different attitude. They tried to find out what sort of things we were good at and what interested us, then suggested some ideas for possible careers - all tailored to the individual. That's what career advice should be about. Looking up lists of vacancies and directing people to them irrespective of suitability is just incompetence.

Advice about CV presentation

One aspect of advice that unemployed people are never short of is how to present a CV. Presentation can sometimes make the difference although it can't hide the fact that I've only done paid work for four and a half years since February 1990, which isn't great even though it was in one solid chunk. Nevertheless, it is essential that I do the best CV that I can. I've listened to or read plenty of advice. Much of it is contradictory, especially when it comes to how many pages a CV should occupy, but I still occasionally get ideas that I haven't thought of before. Given my lack of success in finding work, it could be said that I'm not the best person to give advice about presenting a CV, although I don't think that's where my problem lies. I've sometimes been told at interviews that I had the best-presented CV of all the candidates, but it still wasn't enough to secure the job.

To dumb down or not

One advisor suggested that I should in some way "dumb down" my CV when applying for menial jobs. I understand his thinking but I really can't do that. If I had other attributes such as an outgoing personality or raw physical strength, I'd be more amenable to the idea, but if I had either of those attributes, I doubt that I would be in my present predicament anyway. I regard my brain as by far my strongest asset. Even if I altered my CV, it would be very difficult to play dumb at an interview or in any subsequent job secured by such deception. In any case, I don't like the idea of gaining employment by any form of deliberate deception. For me to have confidence in whatever job I am employed to do (if that happens), I have to know that I secured the job honestly. Some people have no such scruples but if they secure work by deception, they and their new-found employer have to live with the consequences. If the end result is that employers become more reluctant to take on long-term unemployed people, we all suffer.

My CV patronising?

You cannot satisfy everybody with your CV. In 2009, a training advisor at TWL told me that my CV is patronising, because (for example) it contains an "Address" sub-heading. Nobody else before or since has ever suggested that this is a bad thing. I don't agree with him anyway, since nearly all my sub-headings including the "Address" sub-heading are to the left. Most people put such sub-headings on their CV, so it is an established convention. I didn't go on the course in which I would have learned about formatting a CV without the offending "Address" sub-heading and any other similarly patronising sub-headings, because the course was optional and sounded like it would be a waste of time for me. However, I will continue to look for CV tips and monitor trends in CV writing. I may re-format my CV to reflect these ideas if I feel it is necessary.

It is worth noting that if you want to upload your CV into an online form, it might appreciate having important sub-headings such as "Address". If you choose to set up a CV omitting these sub-headings, you may need a second version, including those sub-headings, for uploading into an online form. The software certainly won't complain about being patronised.

Friends, family and ex-colleagues

Another idea sometimes mentioned is that friends should be able to help me back into work. I don't have any friends these days except in cyberspace. My cyber-friends may sometimes have ideas for me to consider but they aren't going to directly help me into a job. In any case, while I have cyber-friends from around the world, I don't have any locally. I can't imagine an overseas employer offering me a job in my current circumstances. As to the family, none of my relatives lives even close to me and they all have completely different work experiences. They couldn't go to their bosses and recommend me for any vacancy they'd know about.

Two of my former bosses are willing to give references if required, but neither can help me in any other way. Apart from them and another person who I worked alongside (and who had the same bosses), I've lost contact with everybody else that I used to work with or for, including my former colleague in Leeds who played a small but important part in bringing The nineties job quest to a successful conclusion. I think he may have moved away from the Leeds area, but in any case I don't think he could help me now.

So while some unemployed people may be able to get back to work via friends, family and ex-colleagues, it's not an option for me as things stand. Of course it's possible that I eventually make friends in real life or cyberspace with somebody who can (including ex-colleagues with whom I've lost contact, if we re-establish contact), but that is more likely to happen by accident rather than design. I sometimes try surfing the net to see if I can find people who may be able to help, but I haven't had any success yet.

In theory, New Deal gives unemployed people the chance to meet new people and it may work for some, but it doesn't work for me. I haven't maintained contact with anybody I met on the New Deal projects that I worked on. It doesn't help that these projects were completely unsuitable for me. Being a total embarrassment does not create an atmosphere in which it is easy to make friends, especially if one works in appalling conditions and ends up with the worst illness since one's schooldays, yet still has to work.

Self-employment

Another suggestion, from a variety of sources including but not limited to career advisors, is that I could become self-employed. It's a nice theory but I don't have any skills to sell. I was self-employed for much of the eighties, but I had my computer programming skills to sell. Nobody wants those out of date skills now. I've heard people say on radio phone-ins that if there were no state benefits for people to fall back on, they'd find something to do as survival instincts would force them to become entrepreneurial. Such people obviously don't inhabit the real world.

Setting up in business often requires a capital outlay, which may require borrowing money to get the business going. Even those with good credit records have difficulty getting bank loans these days, but because of my Bankruptcy, no bank will lend me any money for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, if I go for self-employment, I have to do something that requires little or no capital outlay up front.

No comments: