Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Bleeding Obvious Award (3)

Why should employers be expected to employ people with a history of long term sickness or drug abuse? Unlike Government, employers are not charities. Potential employees should be aware that drug abuse or long term sickness will make jobs more difficult to obtain rather than be tolerated..

Should they be employed in preference to those who are not offenders, drug abusers or those who do regularly turn up for work?

4 comments:

David Vance said...

This Labour mob will soon be forcing private business to employ the sort of wastrels that frequent the public sector.

wonkotsane said...

The public sector now has to employ a certain number of people from minorities regardless of their ability to do the job to make sure they meet quotas. It won't be long before junkies, scivers and wasters are included.

BigRedOne said...

A friend of mine left his well paying job in a bank to work in the public sector in Manchester. He basically went from a professional, sensible working environment to one where nothing was coordinated (16 councils in Manchester, none of whom apparently talk to each other and no IT system compatability), no one worked more than their alloted hours and who had people there solely because they were black, women, swahili etc. After three months he left - one woman complained he was too aggresive ie. he wanted reports in less than two weeks and he couldn't deal with the petty politics and idiocy of it all.
I had entertained notions of doing something similar, now I am happy to be working in the private sector!

Serf said...

This illustrates the stupidity of the state trying to tell people who they should or should not employ.

If I were an employer, I would not want to employ scrotes of any sort.