Wednesday, 27 January 2010

NOW YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE FOR 'RELIABLE' WORKERS!



Recruitment boss Nicole Mamo, 48, tried to post an advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner on her local Jobcentre Plus website.

She ended the job offer by saying that any applicants for the post 'must be very reliable and hard-working'.  But when Ms Mamo called the Jobcentre Plus in Thetford, Norfolk, the following day she was told that her advert would not be displayed.  The job centre in Thetford, Norfolk, said she could not include the phrase 'reliable and hard working' in her advert


A Jobcentre Plus worker claimed that the word 'reliable' meant they could be sued for discriminating against unreliable workers.

HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION-DON'T YOU JUST LOVE IT!

8 comments:

Barking Spider said...

You couldn't fucking make these cunts up, DL!

Dark Lochnagar said...

Spidey, do you sometimes think the world is going crazy and you want to get off!

Strathturret said...

Don't think this has anything to do with HRA.

What pillock advertises for hard working reliable staff. Perhaps add honest too!

If I'm lazy or unrelable would you expect me to tell a prospective employer or even recognise my own deficiencies!

Dark Lochnagar said...

Strathurret, I nearly missed you there. The whole point of their comments were as far as I understand it that if, you were unreliable, then you should be able to apply and the employer should not be able to dicriminate against you!

tris said...

I wonder if you wouold be allowed to say that you wanted some lazy illiterate tosser that doesn't give a fig for the job and will make mistakes and piss customers off all day long.

Oh yeah, you must be able to do that. Most government departments only employ people like that.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Tris, it's coming to the point that that will be the case. Either that or you get some native of Mumbai that is very nice but can't understand a Scots accent and is being listened to by some twat who did 6 years at Mumbai University studying political science and really doesn't want to be there because he wants to teach Indians about Ghandi or some such shite.

Anonymous said...

I suppose there must be a difference between reliable and "regular"

meat eaters need not apply.....

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/some-experience-required.html

Dark Lochnagar said...

Anonymous, I suppose there must be, but 'regular' isn't a wrod I would use regarding a worker. A drip from a tap (fawcet), yes but not a human. But maybe you use it differently in the States.