Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

So push yourself forward no matter how short term you may consider this job and deprive the perfect worker from being employed, isn't this just as bad as falsely pushing forward someone because of colour or creed? Or should an over qualified person be employed because after all they need to be showing their C.V. with no gaps and stuff anyone else. Some jobs are perfect for people with lower abilities, they don't need the extra pressure from having temps keeping them on the dole.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Maybe, just maybe, an employer should be able to say suitable people need not apply, after all a job that requires qualifications has some quango to push unsuitable people forward to show we are being fair to 'minorities' which means qualified people push themselves forward to take the jobs that aught to go to people that would fit in perfectly.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

Yes, because sometimes what might at first glance looks like a short term job, can turn out to be something that you actually enjoy.(a bit like our street cleaner - he has excellent managerial abilities, took the job as a stop gap hoping something else better would come along.
He now does the job because he likes it. He did not realise how much he would enjoy being outside, meeting with the local residents, and being proud of what he does.)
My feelings are that any job that you can do, then you should do it rather than be out of work.
Another thing is, sometimes when you have been employed in a stressful job, one which requires less thought can be mentally healing.

I can understand your point of view, but I think when it comes down to a job of work, or claiming benefits for NOT working....the job wins every time.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

And that would work....would it?
Employers have a choice....they can employ a candidate or not employ them.(depending on the criteria for the post). Sometimes a candidate may fulfil all the criteria, but not get the job...that is just how it goes.
At interview the questions asked by the interviewer usually fit a format(unless it is a small business employer...these usually go on what they need the employee to be able to do...and whether they will fit in) the format is usually weighted to weed out those who are not suitable.

When you employ someone you always hope that they will fulfil the role well, and that they will stay.
There are many reasons why you may lose an employee....and you have to accept that not all your choices will be good ones.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

It would work just as well as fast tracking someone unsuitable into a position they can't handle because of race/sexual bias 'just to even the playing field' (which it doesn't) or someone over-qualified taking the food/work out of the hands of somebody that deserves the job because not only would they be suitable but would stay and be an asset to the company employing them.
Perlease, if you've worked hard and have proved your qualities you should not be pushed aside by fast tracking AND some one that has been pushed aside should not **** on someone less qualified by taking their job just to keep a C.V. full, real quality will find a way without hardship being forced downward.

Re: Should people get a job on ability or because they tick a PC box?
 

I agree that you should not be pushed aside to fast track someone who fits the tick box criteria of race, gender disability etc.
But in the absence of one of these less qualified presenting themselves for interview(probably because they can get more on benefits....or they would not get out of bed for the low wage) then an employer may choose to take a person who could be seen as over qualified.
It is the employers choice and I do not think that someone should be castigated for taking a lowly job in the absence of something better.
It really depends on how much the employer needs a worker....if the worker is there, ready, willing and able....then why not?
I am not sure that taking on someone who could perhaps do something more challenging, is forcing hardship downwards.
If you do not have a job, then the hardship is yours(regardless of your skills. Skills that are unused/unsuitable do not pay the rent or put food on the table).

Gone are the days of a job for life...unless you are an undertaker that is.