Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 11, 2024 14:08:47 GMT
He was fully capable of being interviewed for that podcast/utube posted
agreed
or are you suggesting that his caseworker was figuratively being a nanny holding his hand off camera.
This is reductio ad absurdum
Which is one of the classic fallacies.
He is therefore fully capable of looking up a situations vacant column and applying for a job himself.
Agreed
You've previously posted that you believe that jobs should fit the worker
Agreed
, thus it is entirely probable that roles change and it would be likely that he (if employed) would be required to do a different job - given his expectation of everything being handed to him on a plate , support (ie money benefits as he objects to having to spend his own money)
And that is why he applied for a job as an archivist because such a job is highly suited for his enhanced systematic thinking, indeed it seems like the ideal job. Therefore your imaginations and biases expressed here are completely unfounded.
You misinterpret his argument about spending his own money as well. The benefits system discourages getting a job. Lets take some simple figures just for illustration purposes and it will demonstrate the problem. Say someone is on the dole and gets £100 pw to live on, and say the same person when working gets £200pw to live on. Obviously the incentive is to work so you double your income. Now suppose there are two people on the dole. One does not work for a year so gets 100pw. The second person gets a job and for the time they are working they get £200pw but the job only lasts a few months and then for the rest of the year they are unemployed. For the time they are unemployed in the rest of the year they will get less than the person who never worked, so that is like saying that instead of doubling your money by working, taken over the whole year it is equivalent to £100pw for when unemployed, but crucially less than double when they were working, and indeed depending on times and amounts this could mean in practice they were only getting marginally over the dole for the working period, unless they choose to waste the money instead of saving it.
I guess your brain didn't get all of that, but it just goes to show he is a pretty smart chap with the maths.
and inflexibility the employer is left between a rock and a hard place with an over needy employee who thinks the workplace should fit him rather than doing the job required to be done.
Again you are applying bias and distortion to what I was saying before. He is not that selfish. He just wants a job and so he did his best to find one he could hit the ground running with and make the employer very happy they have a good efficient and accurate archive assistant. I employed someone a bit like him once and he was the best worker I ever had. Eventually he was poached off me for a large salary he could not refuse. He was so sad to leave though. Mind you I don't operate a clown world like the organisation he applied to.
He isn't ''disabled'' , he is mobile , not blind or deaf and can hold an interview. The propensity to circling niche bandwagon in the past few decades afford his personality type a label of ''disabled''.
He did little to find a job himself (expecting ''support'' aka free money) , now has a caseworker (handholder) on call for a job hunt , expecting everything to be handed to him on a plate and bemoaned not being able to get ''support'' (aka free money) and needing to spend his own money.
Based on this podcast I wouldn't employ someone with his poor attitude and self appointed sense of entitledness.
He applied for a job as an archivist , job descriptions are flexible - he doesn't present as someone with an ounce of flexibility , just imagine the strop he'd thow if he was told it's his turn to make the tea !
I believe we had better agree to disagree.