(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

[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.

Also, from my own experience (and sorry to be so predictable here) at this level it is usually the person who has to 'fit' themselves (mentally, physically, financially, ideologically) to each job that comes along - catering, factory, customer service etc. - rather than finding the job which 'fits' them in some magical careers-counselling sort of way. The contemporary job 'market' has very little, for instance, to do with education, knowledge or interests, but everything to do with presentation, confidence and connections, i.e. class. The worker at the bottom of the pile is still expected to accept their lot, to perform to order and not get ideas above their station: in the words of the old comedy sketch, 'I know my place'.

All jobs take over your life

Again, at the mundane end of the scale, it's precisely not the job that takes over, but the thoughts of losing the job (which is crap anyway) and where to get another one (which will be just as crap). These constant anxieties and distractions prevent one from thinking about the actual job, seeing it in its social and ethical context (beyond its corporate 'ethos'), forming meaningful relationships with colleagues or changing working conditions, as the job is never predictable or worthwhile enough to become 'real'. The job itself is a sort of blank space, something to get through unthinkingly and then forget about - which gives the agency/employer an ultra-obedient, unquestioning workforce which will take the weight of the system. This situation, in which so much 'spare' time and effort is given over to applying for future jobs, preparing for appraisals, updating CVs, being available etc. also discourages a lot of productive interests and activities which could offset the crap/unproductive job. Or, if such interests (say writing, or political discussion) are pursued, they are accompanied by a sense of guilt that one is not giving one's full attention to the supposedly more important matter of 'career development'.

[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 5pm) in which, standing up at all times and staying in the same position on the production line, I take two plastic components out of their cellophane wrappers, attach one part to another by banging the hinge with my palm, twist a wire into a hole in one part, put a sticker on the other part, put the thing on a shelf in front of me, unwrap more components, attach more wires and stickers, attach one part to the other, put them on the shelf, ad infinitum. To not describe these jobs as mundane would be insulting to the people doing them. The mundaneness is however not just concerned with the repetitive and mechanical dimensions of the tasks themselves, but with the knowledge that these tasks have no social use whatsoever and, relatedly, with the utter lack of social interaction in these workplaces. In contrast, I have worked several times as a temporary sorter for Royal Mail, and the positive social aspects of this job (between workers, and between worker and 'customer') make the work much more interesting, and the task, although repetitive, does not seem futile; so I do not regard this job as mundane.

[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 would it be if all the people in roles of a company had no idea of the internal workings of the company?? You need to have that form of progression.
Equally, only a few roles in a company have that limitation. Maybe 5% of roles are advertised internally-only.

[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 experienced one of those free IT training courses. My impression was that it was designed to re-boot the unemployed, former industrial workers and old-media people so they could not excuse themselves from data entry duties and online jobsearches (and yes, the course is free - but it also means that more of your 'free' time is spent keeping up with the language of pseudo-work and careers), and also to make these people into more efficient virtual consumers. Both these courses are aimed at classifying people, getting them to fit more efficiently into the positions assigned to them. And I dread to think what a "gifted and Talented" course involves...

In my "vacancies are mostly filled by 'internal' candidates" comment I was trying to be clever (and obviously failing!). I was using the word 'internal' metaphorically to refer to candidates recruited from within a given social class, rather than literally inside the same organisation.

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.