(Untitled)

[no_ambiguity]

People constantly talk about the laziness of people who go on benefits rather than simply getting any job. It's probably true that it's possible for most people to find some sort of job, but the conditions in many casual jobs are often bloody appalling. Catering is a good example. I have worked as a catering assistant before in holidays from

Comments

[innocent_irony]

Meh.

I worked under "those conditions" for over three years, and personally? I loved it. I loved the whole working-hard, rushing about, being part of an active team.

Frankly, "those conditions" are ok to work under. You/one choose(es) to work there, you have many other options, but you do what "fits" you. For me - I was doing uni for part of that time - so it suited me to have odd hours and a role i could mould around my time (as much as it did likewise back). When I quit uni , i preferred a haphazard job as it gave me random mornings and random evenings free. I loved the 18hour shifts, and the mini perks - such as a meal, entrance to balls etc.

"Those conditions" are 100x better than other jobs you could work in. Look around. Every job anyone can do has bad points. Everyone who starts a role has read the job spec beforehand, and they know the territory.

[palmer1984]

Firstly I wasn't saying that it's impossible to enjoy these jobs. I loved one of my catering assistant jobs. I'm saying that the money is crap and the hours people are expected to work if they want to earn more money is appalling. And even then they don't get enough money for it. Conditions should be improved and there should be more flexibility from the standpoint of the workers. I'm not saying it's terrible, just that if you do it full time, and if you want to be promoted it takes over your life, and you end up working twice the hours that, for instance, an office worker would

[innocent_irony]

Not atall

[screenedout]

A very significant topic, which I have already given some thought, and some interesting comments.

You/one choose(es) to work there, you have many other options, but you do what "fits" you. [...] I don't, honestly, believe that anyone in this country is "forced" to do any form of job.

As no_ambiguity suggests below, I think the idea of 'choice' is not so clear cut. For instance, the current streamlining of the benefits system, and increasing use of recruitment agencies and temporary contracts enable this rhetoric of 'choice' and 'opportunity' to obscure an element of coercion by which the lower levels of employment are routinely managed, and kept both flexible and in place. This constant low-level insecurity and precarity - occasionally overwhelming but mostly so apparently trivial as to be taken for granted, something not to be complained about - allows the economic structure to maintain its security. In other words, institutional anxieties are delegated downwards

[innocent_irony]

Short answer here ('cause I be sleepy!), but frankly, everything you say in the second paragraph relates to 99% of jobs.
Secondly, I'd love for a definition of what you believe to be a 'mundane' job? Personally, I don't believe many people who are doing the jobs you place under that definition would appreciate their role being placed under that banner.

[screenedout]

Yes, it applies to 99% of jobs because in reality we are all fitted to the jobs rather than the jobs fitted to us. The class positions are generally fixed and vacancies are mostly filled by 'internal' candidates. We are all told what is the right 'place' for us and learn to identify it as ours. That is not a system based upon choice or opportunity.

I'd love for a definition of what you believe to be a 'mundane' job? Personally, I don't believe many people who are doing the jobs you place under that definition would appreciate their role being placed under that banner.I define it by the jobs I have done which I would place absolutely under that banner. My most recent definition would be a temporary 'role' lasting for six daily shifts of five hours, each of which consists of sitting at a desk separating 700 perforated pages of computer printout, then separating a roll of printed address labels, then stapling each label to each sheet of paper. Those are the entire duties of the job. Or, alternatively, a factory 'role' (from 6.45am to

[innocent_irony]

Ok.
I'm just checking because I dislike the idea of being told that working in catering is "mundane".

I disagree with your first paragraph. To a degree, yes, people are limited by their skillset. This is not entirely defined by some form of "class position" - infact I don't think it is anywhere near as much as people want to believe it is (again, note I'm just arguing for the UK etc here).
Take my job. I chose it. I like it. Ideally, of course, I'd much prefer to be a rock star. However, skill set says no. Irrespective of my "class", I'd not stand a chance of doing that.

If class defined everything we did, then why have "gifted and Talented" courses? Why have sponsored fully-paid management courses? Why have free IT training?

"vacancies are mostly filled by 'internal' candidates" Hence, to the degree that that is true, referring to what I said above. If you want to do a role, you have to be prepared to do a less significant job first to prove your worth. And you can't tell me that internal promotion is a bad thing. How useless

[screenedout]

Thanks for the constructive argument here (and apologies for hijacking this thread with my polemical ranting)...

I don't mean to make assumptions about your situation, but how sure are you that you 'chose' your job entirely of your own volition? Was there no institutional process of negotiation, shaping and selection? Did the job itself not exist in any form before you arrived? Are other elements of identity - for instance gender, friendship, politics - similarly freely chosen by the individual, or are various cultural pressures involved?

If class defined everything we did, then why have "gifted and Talented" courses? Why have sponsored fully-paid management courses? Why have free IT training?Unsurprisingly I have never been on a sponsored management course, but I suspect that they teach people how to use corporate jargon and methods to get the 'right' results, after they have already been appointed or earmarked as managers (these courses seem to be especially popular in the marketizing of the public sector). I have however

Re: 'chose' your job entirely of your own volition

[palmer1984]

Yes, someone has to do the unpleasant job, but they should be compensated well for it, and they should have good working conditions.