For some light relief, take a look at the the 25 Top Oddball Interview Questions of 2011, as compiled by Glassdoor.com, a website that allows people to say what they really think about the company they work for.  These questions were ones that were really asked in interviews, apparently.  My favourite  (and I say that sitting here in the comfort of my own home and not sweating in an interview) is “Just entertain me for five minutes. I’m not going to talk”.  How would I answer? Nervous laugh?  A song and dance routine. Tell the guy he’s a complete ar*e and walk out?  I don’t know and I hope I never have to provide that answer.

Nor would I want to prove that Germans are the tallest people in the world, or If I was a Microsoft Office program which one would I be?  One question which put me in mind of the dreaded employee of the month award was “If you could be #1 employee but have all your coworkers dislike you or you could be #15 employee and have all your coworkers like you, which would you choose?”.  Tricky.  Almost as tricky as how you’d get an elephant into a refrigerator. Potential answer? “Bovvered? Do I look bovvered?”

The one I’d feel happiest answering though is “If you could be a superhero, what power would you possess?”.  My answer?  The power to detect bullsh*t well in advance.

Try as I might I can’t think of any witty or pithy responses to any of these questions.  I’m sure my fear of being out of work, whilst motivated at least 90% by wondering how to pay the mortgage is also a fear of having to sit in an interview and try and be polite whilst facing cretinous questions like these. Apparently George Melly, the late great Jazz singer once was cornered by a group of thugs intent on beating him up.  He managed to escape by loudly  reciting a Dada -ist poem that convinced his would be assailants that he must be deranged, so they left him alone.  It seems like a good idea to me.

The subject of complete nonsense takes me nicely on to Lucy Kellaway’s most recent podcast. It’s only 5 minutes long and well worth listening to – click here  Listen to Lucy – The Guff Awards 2011

In it Lucy reveals her choices for the most vacuous bit of corporate jargon from the last year – mission statements, promises to give 100,000% to the job and so forth.  She also gives an award for the best (ie worst) euphemism for redundancy.  The company  concerned announced that it was “managing for value”.

Related posts:

1. 10 questions to ask if you’re made redundant

Oddball Interview Questions & Other Guff originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 11/01/2012.

I always enjoy the week between Christmas and New Year; it gives me the chance to do all those jobs that I’ve wanted to do around the house and to wade into the pile of books and novels I collect throughout the year and never quite get chance to read. This year has been no different and in amongst all the festivities I’ve managed to make some inroads into the reading list.  A case in point is the first novel by Selma Dabbagh, a British Palestinian writer, called Out of It.  It makes for a very uncomfortable, although very readable experience (if that isn’t a contradiction in terms).

It’s main focus is Gaza and the enduring conflict between Palestinians and Israel mainly seen through the eyes of a brother (Rashid) and his twin sister (Iman), both 27 years old. Probably like a lot of people in the West I don’t pay as much attention to what is going on in Gaza as I should, but the power of this novel is how it manages to portray the awful conditions in Gaza and the sense of hopelessness better than many news or TV reports. It has a power and immediacy that “the truth”, as reported by news media, often lacks.

There is an extra layer of interest in this book for me as well: Dabbagh is a practising lawyer, who trained with Fisher Meredith and now currently works part time with Hickman & Rose, a firm of criminal and human rights solicitors based in Clerkenwell. She has advised clients who were injured and detained by Israeli forces in the Gaza Flotilla in 2010.

The characters are all vividly drawn and believable, if not especially likeable. There is no sentimentality in this book: it does genuinely read like a “fly on the wall” account. Rashid is frequently literally “out of it” through smoking marijuana and then he secures a scholarship to study in London. Iman returns to Gaza from studying in Switzerland anxious to “make a difference” and not content just to be a member of a worthy committee cum talking shop, such as she finds at the Women’s Committee on her return. The women don’t take to her as an outsider. For a while it looks like Iman wants to be not just out of Gaza but out of life as well.  Displacement, appropriately enough for a book that deals with the Palestinian situation, is a constant theme in this book. Making it a theme in a novel as well written as this brings home the desperation of the Palestinian people better than any facts or figures can.

The family is (or was) wealthy with political connections, but the father has escaped to a Gulf State which sounds suspiciously like Dubai.  He was involved politically until he was humiliated into leaving and taking up a life of Western comfort, much to his daughter’s disgust. They were all previously in Switzerland and Paris and, for Rashid, isolated from his family through his waning interest  in  the Palestinian struggle, unlike his elder, disabled, brother, Sabri, who spends his days researching and writing a book about the intifada. The mother holds a dark secret about her past which only slowly gets revealed as you read through the book.

This is a powerful book, tightly written, partisan and unsentimental. The Israelis are clearly the enemy and there is, unsurprisingly, nothing in the book to recognise the security threat posed to them. For instance, at one point Sabri, tells an English peace campaigner struggling to make sense of it all the following;

‘It’s not something you can ever “get straight in your head”… ‘It’s too wrong to be justified, too screwed up to be straightened out. If you force yourself to understand it in any way that leads you to justify it then you are fucked and we are lost“

 But this is a novel and why not be partisan?  It is a book about experience – terrifying experience – such as when Iman sees someone she knows blown apart by a missile from an Israeli drone.  At the beginning of the book the Israelis conduct a terrifying air-raid in retaliation for a failed Palestinian suicide bomber; overwhelming force used to destroy a hospital which dismembers and kills a little boy known to Iman, fuelling her hatred of the enemy.   It demonstrates  the futility of the Israeli “eye for an eye. tooth for a tooth” policy.

However, the novel is not partisan to the extent of ignoring the problems in Palestinian politics.  Frequent mention is made of the corruption of the “leadership”, a shadowy body that seems to exist without any explained democratic process. Hamas is not mentioned by name but that may be who Dabbagh is referring to in the book as the “Outside Leadership”.  Another example is how one of the family’s neighbours, Abu Omar, a man not widely liked by anyone, is suddenly “arrested” one day and taken away in the same way that used to happen in Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Gazans then are not portrayed as a plucky heroic people fighting outrageous oppression but instead as a people simply oppressed and subjected to appalling injustice, both from without and within.

It’s a book with many themes and layers, political and personal.  There is the conflict between different nations and between different family members. It’s also a book about rites of passage – Iman has been ensconsed in the struggle for so long that she seems to have no life of  her own. Her father’s girlfriend urges her to “concentrate on developing herself as a woman”, code for getting a boyfriend and a life away from Gaza.  Rashid has a failed relationship with an English girl who only wants him because of the credibility it gives her when campaigning with a pro-Palestinian body in London.

Does it provide any answers to the intractable dispute in the Middle-East? No, but it’s a powerful first novel and well worth reading if you want any insight into the Palestinian crisis.

No related posts.

Book Review: Hopeless in Gaza? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 30/12/2011.

In the dog days of 2011, when all there is to do is eat cold turkey and chocolate (but not necessarily at the same time), I thought it time to give the old blog a make over.  I was a bit jaded with the old blue and grey colour scheme and wanted something minimalist that would fit in with the other two blogs I write – Troubleahead and UK BlawgRoundUp.  I like the cleanness of the white background, contrasting with black writing.  I’d also got fed up with seeing my mugshot in the sidebar.  I might get a new photo done in due course, but for the time being I’m going with the stripped down bare basics look. The old theme – Persephone – didn’t provide much design flexibility and altering the borders round photographs proved beyond my coding skills. The problem was the text font was very hard to distinguish from the background colour: not so anymore.

I decided to opt for Headway (on the advice of Tessa Shepperson, who helped set up the other two blogs) because it offers maximum flexibility over design.

It’s a premium theme – costing about £45 at current exchange rates and that is the basic purchase option.  I justify the purchase on the basis that it puts me in charge of the design, once I’ve got to grips with the design editor, and means I should be able to update it again when I want. It is also said to offer SEO advantages over other themes but I take this with a pinch of salt.

The design editor is the key selling point of Headway. You don’t need to understand CSS or html etc to be able to use it, although I suspect that probably would come in very handy. You also aren’t limited to choosing two or three column pre-set templates.  Headway uses a “drag and drop” system of grids and blocks so that you can put what you want where you want. I won’t pretend that I’ve got on top if it yet, but it promises flexibility for the future.

I’ve still got some tinkering to do with some of the widgets and various other bits and pieces, but please bear with me on this.  I’d welcome your comments on the new look as well.

I’m hoping to get another couple of posts up before the New Year. In the meantime I’m off to eat some more chocolate.

Related posts:

1. Happy New Year!

New Year, New Look originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 28/12/2011.

Continuing the theme from my last post, I stumbled upon a picture of another employee forced to dress up for work. I don’t think this is quite as bad as forcing Father Christmas to promote Pizzas at road junctions, but it’s not far off.  Love it!

No related posts.

So You Think Your Job’s Bad? Part II originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 01/12/2011.

Then think again. It could be a lot, lot worse. For instance, this morning (19th November – 35 shopping days to  Christmas) I saw Santa with a sandwich board advertising Dominos pizzas standing at a cross roads.

This prompted several questions, mainly from my 4 year old daughter who may still believe; such as “what is Santa doing standing there”, “why?” and “where are the reindeers?”.  My question was “what has Santa got to do with pizzas?”  Is it likely to make me rush out to Dominos and invest?  Unlikely and not just because I’m a food snob.

Mrs Jobsworth got quite enraged at the thought of someone getting paid a pittance to stand around all day at a traffic junction.

In November.

Then I stumbled on these next two images. Things can always be worse,

And on a similar theme,

Has anyone got any better photos? I’d like to see them.

No related posts.

So You Think Your Job’s Bad? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 19/11/2011.

The Bribery Act probably doesn’t outlaw breakfast “networking” meetings that just happen to coincide with rugby matches and take place near a large TV screen.  I’m always very keen on that sort of networking. Invitations to all rugby, cricket and football matches accepted.

On the way to the said networking meeting you can listen to Lucy Kellaway’s excellent podcast called, appropriately enough “Listen to Lucy”.  I’ve only recently discovered them and they are great: short, amusing, pithy but always worth a listen. Lucy’s theme is usually the nonsense surrounding corporate life – buzzwords, mission statements, public announcements, research etc.  Her latest considers a recent report that says teddy bears may be a benefit in the boardroom.  You can listen by clicking here.

Yesterday I came across a particularly nasty example of workplace harassment and bullying, where one employee continuously harrasses his colleague and makes his life a misery.  Click here to read the list of complaints made by the worker. See what you think and be sure to scroll down right to the end to the Justin Bieber photos, which are very funny (not that I’ve any real idea who Justin Bieber is). There were many other complaints by the unfortunate Simon Dempsey against the irrepressible David Thorne (I don’t know who he is either, perhaps I should get out more). This complaint was my favourite,

As @BillWillcocks said to me on Twitter trying to keep a straight face in the disciplinary meeting would have been very difficult.If you have excruciating stories of disciplinary offences please share them by leaving a comment on here.

Tonight sees the Last Night of the Proms (has anyone any spare tickets to the Royal Albert Hall?) which, to my mind apart from being a great night is also the end of summer.  It’ll soon be Christmas.

Have a good weekend.

No related posts.

Saturday Digressions originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 10/09/2011.

The villain of the piece

Please forgive me for writing a second post on “Clarriegate” but leaving aside the actual issues of who what when etc, it occurred to me that the main focus of this story, to my mind anyway, is how a business can recover from a devastating blow like this. Is it possible at all and if they can survive will they have to rebrand to distance themselves from the “old business”?.

The aspect of the story that has really interested me was the discussion between Pat, Tony and Tom over whether to make a public statement and, later whether to and how to handle a radio interview.  Initially Pat and Tony didn’t want to make a statement, but were persuaded that they had to put their side of the story “out there” to counterbalance the negative publicity.  What they wanted to express was how sorry they were about the people who had been made ill.  That, of course, they couldn’t say, for fear of admitting liability. That’s usually the way, anodyne corporate statements that don’t really say anything, satisfies no one and just digs the business into a deeper hole.

 However, by a lucky stroke (remember this is  fiction after all) Environmental Health gave the dairy a clean bill of health so Pat  had a “good news” story to give in the interview, which she subsequently did and she was able to fully express her distress at what had happened, explaining that it was one isolated incident that caused the outbreak. It sounded convincing and heartfelt and I hope it proves to have been a success.

I think this has been one of the best story lines on the programme for a while: The Archers has been getting pretty tedious of late so well done the scriptwriters for upping their game.

 What next? This is my guess: the dairy will start producing again shortly, Clarrie will be welcomed back after much “should I or shouldn’t I resign” type talk, followed by a tearful rapprochement all round and the dairy will be rebranded to break the link. Everything will quieten down and then Pat and Tony will get sued in a product liability claim, which will be settled shortly before trial by way of mediation.  Watch this space or, better still, listen to the programme itself.

Related posts:

1. Should Clarrie be sacked?

Should Clarrie be Sacked Pt.II originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 04/08/2011.

Dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-dum-de-dum-dum-de-da-da

Listeners to The Archers will know that, finally, there is a really good story line being played out at the moment. The Ambridge Organic Dairy, purveyors of ice-cream, cheese and yoghurt run by the terminally wet Tony and insufferably smug Pat Archer (Pol Pat to listeners)has been hit by an outbreak of ecoli, which infected several people at a Country Fair, including two small children who have been hospitalised as a result.

Ambridge Organic faces ruin as a result, not just from having their products taken off sale everywhere but from the prospect of being sued by the victims. Couldn’t happen to nicer (fictitional) people.

The infection was imported into the dairy by an employee, Clarrie Grundie, wife of ne’er do well Eddie, when she returned to work too soon after having a bout of diarrhoea. She put that down to a dodgy sausage eaten at a BBQ whilst on holiday, but that remains intriguingly unexplored.  Tests carried out by Environmental Health prove that Clarrie was the carrier.

Already Tom Archer, son of Tony and Pat and sausage maker extraordinaire, has been pushing for Clarrie to be sacked in order to “protect the brand” by demonstrating to the outside world that they have taken steps to correct the cause of the problem. Tony and Pat, showing her softer side, are strongly against it and have pointed out that it would do them no good, won’t restore their reputation and may look like an admission of negligence if they do subsequently get sued.

It looks like Clarrie will escape the axe, but what are the pros and cons?

Three reasons in favour of sacking her;

•  She broke the Dairy’s clearly stated and well understood policy on infection control, requiring any person who has been unwell like this to remain away from work for 48 hours after the last “incident”. She went back after about 40 hours.
• The business has been brought to its knees as a result and has been closed since the outbreak over 10 days ago. Its best customer, the local department store, has dumped them, the premises have had to be specially cleaned at great expense and all staff, including Clarrie, are being paid whilst the dairy is closed. The local newspapers have been camped outside the farm and the outbreak has been front page news in the local rags. The owners have suffered massive reputational damage and face potential financial ruin.
• She was the source of the infection. If the employer doesn’t dismiss it will be accused of complacency and not treating its infection control policy seriously

Three for not;

• She is an excellent, normally reliable, worker with an unblemished record (as far as one can have an unblemished record on a soap opera) of over 15 years’ loyal service.
• It was an honest mistake.  She forgot about the last bout of illness and genuinely thought she was safe to return
• Clarrie has shown contrition.  She is mortified that she has been the source and especially at the thought of having been the reason for two children being in hospital as a result. My guess is that the storyline is now going to turn towards her suffering depression as a result.  Already she is avoiding neighbours and friends and staying indoors. Financial ruin awaits for the Grundys (again) if she loses her job. What good would sacking her now do?

Personally I wouldn’t sack Clarrie, who despite having an irritatingly whiney voice, is one of the genuinely decent characters in the series. Now, had it been Susan Carter, I would gladly have seen her sent to the gulags in Siberia for at least 30 years hard labour.  That’s drama I guess; they never get the right ones.  Why did Nigel Pargeter have to fall off the roof at New Year?

 I digress. If Pat were to sack Clarrie she would probably be legally justified in so doing.  Clarrie’s actions were a clear case of misconduct and a breach of the dairy’s well known policy.  Dismissal would be within the range of reasonable responses by which employers are judged by Employment Tribunals.

I don’t expect them to do that though, although Clarrie may resign of her own accord.  What would a normal employer in the real world do? That’s the great thing about drama it allows these dilemmas to be played out.

So, what would you do?

Take Our Poll

Related posts:

1. Should Clarrie be Sacked Pt.II

Should Clarrie be sacked? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 03/08/2011.

I often get asked what is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister. The usual answer is that solicitors are the back room boys and barristers stand up in court and present the cases, but that isn’t completely definitive.  A more visual example is provided in Tim Kevan’s new book “Law and Peace”, the second volume of BabyBarista’s diaries: barristers wear doublecuffs and hand-made suits, solicitors leather jackets and rucksacks. Hmm.

If you haven’t read it (or the previous volume “Law and Disorder”) do so. It’s an amusing but uncomfortable look at the legal profession, very funny if you are a lawyer and probably just as funny if you’re not.  If you’re looking for a book to take on the aeroplane or to lie with on the beach this summer then this would be a good choice.

Readers of The Guardian’s law page will be familiar with the story of the young barrister making his way through life in legal London. In this latest book BabyB, as he is known, has now won his fight for a tenancy (ie a right to practise from a set of barristers’ chambers) and is busy pursuing a class action on behalf of a group of old people (Mad Oldies or “Moldys”) who claim their bad behaviour, which led to them all being slapped with ASBOs, was caused by radio waves from mobile phone masts.

At every turn BabyB is forced into career threatening actions by one (or more) of the key threads that run through the heart of the story: BabyB’s ongoing fight with his arch-enemy TopFirst, the second his putative love affair with Claire and the third the need to rescue his mother from the massive debts she incurred to put BabyB through Oxford and then Bar School.  Yes, this is a story of social mobility and it enables Tim Kevan to put the Bar’s social mores under the microscope.   With few exceptions, all the characters are portrayed in a highly unflattering (although usually very amusing light).  It’s written as a diary, which allows the author to keep a tight rein on the plot but also to drop in sub-plots and general observations about law or lawyers.

In the first volume BabyB was fighting to secure a tenancy in chambers.  In this second volume, he has secured the prized tenancy and is now properly in practice or, more descriptively, improperly in practice. The story of the “Moldy litigation” races along, with BabyB trying to stay one step ahead of his rivals and his instructing solicitors all the time usually by employing ruthless cunning or unscrupulous behaviour, into which he is forced by his instructing solicitors or by his need to outwit his implacable enemy TopFirst. BabyB isn’t an anti-hero – he wants to do the right thing but is usually thwarted. You want to like him and see him succeed.

Yes, this is a story about the Bar, but the other half of the profession don’t come away lightly either. It’s a close call whether the solicitors are any more unscrupulous than the barristers.  The characters are all sharply drawn and believable, as only a barrister in private practice could write.  Of course it is a caricature, with the worst elements exaggerated, but it is a highly entertaining read and thoroughly recommended.

Roll on volume three!  In the meantime, here is a link to the BabyBarista website, for more information and updates.

Related posts:

1. SRP to be reviewed

Law and Peace Reviewed originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 19/05/2011.

Over this last long weekend I must confess to not having spent much time thinking about employment law or (given the decision of my laptop to self-destruct just prior to the Royal Wedding) to blogging.  But two articles mentioning employment law did catch my attention.  One was a spoof, the other deadly serious.  Can you tell which?

One article was entitled

Yesterday’s show of British institutions at their best hide years of political vandalism that wrecked our constitution

It went on thus;

Although this country remains in serious economic trouble, two of our greatest institutions (the monarchy and the Armed Forces) proved yesterday that Britain can still put on a brilliant show when required and captivate a global TV audience. And for a few days at least, London has seemed like the centre of the world again.

And then got even more excited

Yesterday’s wedding obscures a painful fact: the British constitution — which took centuries to evolve — has been all but wrecked by just a few decades of vandalism inflicted by opportunistic politicians from all the main parties. They have been assisted by liberal judges, bien pensant academics and Leftist commentators intent on demolishing a system that actually worked rather well. … Their malevolent handiwork has led to the complete transformation of our constitutional and governing arrangements — with predictably calamitous results.

And guess who comes in for particular fire?

Take employment law, one of the areas where the over-weening EU has been most aggressive. Since Britain signed up to the Social Chapter there has been a slew of anti-enterprise impositions on businesses and an explosion in workers’ rights and the number of costly industrial tribunals. This discourages hiring and the job creation that is so badly needed after a deep recession.

Yes, good old employment law.  That’s the law that protects employees from being unfairly dismissed, certain minorities from being discriminated against and ensuring that if your employer transfers its business to a new company you probably have some protection from being dismissed out of hand.

Then there was another article entitled

EAS Sufferers Receive European Court Backing

which discussed how sufferers of a nasty psychological condition called “Employee Aversion Syndrome” (EAS) have received backing from the European Courts.  EAS is a condition in which

Those experiencing EAS are unable to face the prospect of employment,’ explained a spokesperson for the EAS Society of Great Britain. ‘Sufferers have often, however, been stigmatised by society and have experienced discrimination in being considered as idle, scrounging layabouts.’

The test case at the European Court concerned Mr Max Langour of London. His EAS had compelled him for many years to remain in bed each day until the pubs were open, and then spend his remaining waking hours watching TV from his sofa – within easy reach of a case of lager.

Lawyers for Mr Langour identified breaches of several ECHR Convention Articles, including Article 3 (inhuman treatment), Article 4 (slavery or servitude), Article 5 (deprivation of liberty) and Article 8 (interference with normal family life).

The analysis of this famous victory is stated thus;

EAS sufferers are reported to be delighted by the decision. ‘We believe our members are now fully vindicated by the European Court’s judgement,’ said a spokesperson for the EAS Society of GreatBritain. ‘European governments must now recognise the right of EAS sufferers to not work, and their right to be eligible for state benefits adequate to support their lifestyles.’

Spot the spoof?  (answer at the bottom)

Whilst you’re considering that thorny question, buy yourself a copy of Tim Kevan’s latest book about a spoof lawyer, BabyBarista.  It is entitled “Law and Peace” and is published by Bloomsbury (and available at Amazon).  If you didn’t read the first volume (Law and Disorder) it’s about a fictional young barrister operating at or indeed beyond the limits of normal professional conduct in a set of barristers’ chambers. It is serialised in The Guardian and the first volume received very favourable reviews.  The latest edition is even funnier than the first and I’ll be reviewing it here shortly.  It formally launches on 11^th May at The Old Bank of England Vaults, 194 Fleet Street,  London EC4 from 6-10pm.  All are welcome, especially those with Employee Aversion Syndrome.

I’ll be there.

Answer:

The first article appeared in Mail Online

And the second appeared here .

I’m not sure it’s so clear cut though.

Related posts:

1. How do You Spot a Whistleblower?

Spot the Spoof originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 03/05/2011.