Having lived in York for almost eight years now, I consider myself as a northerner by adoption. My pronunciations of 'grass' and 'class' are faultless, I like chips and gravy, I talk disparagingly about soft southerners who panic at the merest sprinkling of snow. But there's one supposedly northern trait I can't quite accept.
As my job involves answering phone calls, I come across this quite a lot. And that is probably part of the problem, since on the phone it's difficult to judge if someone is being patronising or just friendly. Especially when they have a heavy accent (Yorkshire is fine, and I'm getting the hang of the varieties of the Newcastle/ Durham area, but sometimes it's just too much.). Can you tell what it is yet?
It's the northern tendency to describe the person they're talking to as 'luv' or similar.
I've heard this tendency described (by both southerners and northerners) as 'endearing' and 'friendly' and I'm sure that much of the time that's how it is intended. The trouble is, most of the people describing it in that way are male. If you're a young female and are being described as 'darling' by someone who is older and acts as if he's incredibly superior to you, it's not quite the same as when a middle aged lady is helpful in a shop. I don't mind the latter kind. What I object to is when the speaker is being partonising. I got called 'darling' about seven times in the course of a minute long phone call yesterday. If that's friendlyness, it's excessive to the point of creepy when it's from a man I don't know.
It's worse if it's at work. I have to be polite, which is seen as encouraging. I can't challenge patronising behaviour. I can't even report it to senior staff- what can I report? A client was overly friendly? I felt uncomfortable? I'd just get told to grow up/ calm down, unless it was serious enough to claim sexual harrassment- and it's not, really. Sometimes it's genuine friendliness which I may have just misinterpreted, sometimes the person patronising might not be aware of how they're coming across.
But sometimes it is genuinely patronising. Perhaps it's less of a northern thing, and more of a class thing. Because I am a receptionist, typically a low skilled and low paid job. A lot of our clients are people who are pretty well off- business owners, professionals. And although by no means universally, some people do seem to regard me and people like me as unworthy of equal treatment. Class may not be determined by birth, but it is often, on an every day level, determined by money.
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Friday, 26 August 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
What the Dickens!
Laptop problems a couple of weekends ago led to me actually settling down to read a book- Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby, to be precise. Dickens has a wonderful way of describing what life was like for the Victorian poor, of describing what it was like to scrape a living in any way you could. Even those with what we would think of as decent office jobs were often still despearately poor and at the mercy of their masters- Bob Cratchit, for example. Being able to save up for the future was as much of an impossible dream as it is for many today, with every penny needed to pay the rent and keep the household fed, clothed and warm. A single incident outside a person's control- illness, a rise in prices, loosing your job- could drop an entire family from 'getting on all right' into poverty at a moment's notice, and there was no safety net of the welfare state.
Any of that sound familiar? It did to me. As I was reading I kept thinking how little some things have changed. Low paid employees (the retail and service sector today as much as office and manufacturing) are still at the mercy of their employees, particularly temporary or part time workers. Often rules supposedly imposed for the good of employees aren't enforced- even the minimum wage- as employers today complain about employee rights stifling business growth. Well, call me a radical, but I can't help but think that if you can't afford to pay decent wages to your employees and treat them as human beings rather than robots, your business probably has other problems. With plans afoot to refuse legal aid for employment matters the situation isn't likely to get much better. Perhaps we need reminding why some of these laws were brought in.
While reading I kept wondering what Dickens would have written about had he been writing today. Would Fagin's gang have been drug dealers in inner city estates? What would he have had to say about Coketown's post-industrial decline? Would Paris be replaced in A Tale of Two cities by Tripoli, or Kabul, or Cairo?
One thing he wouldn't have had to change is the unpleasant portrayal of bankers and money-lenders. Nicholas Nickleby even has a cameo by a corrupt MP! Unfortunately some things do not change. But sometimes I think we find it hard to accept how little change has been made in some areas. We can accept poverty in past, or far away in Africa. But the statistics that show how many children in this country, in 2011 are living in poverty are too hard to handle. We categorise all those without jobs, for whatever reason, as 'lazy dole scum' and think that all those who are homeless are to blame for their plight.
But today, like in the nineteenth century, it can take very little for a seemingly comfortable family- or individual*- to find themselves in real difficulty- for food, for heating (a BBC report last week said that a fifth of households in Britain are affected by fuel poverty, and costs are still rising) and for accommodation. Selling off council houses was great for the families that could buy them, but no so great for their children who now have little access to affordable housing.
This wasn't intended as rant, merely a reflection on what a modern Dickens would be writing about today. I wonder if there is anyone writing with the same knowledge and ability to evoke the world of the poor as completely as he did? Given our cynicism today it would be quite a challenge to make critics understand what that world is really like, and to stop them in their calls to tear apart the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately, whereas Dickens' characters all seem to end up at least comfortably off- due to mysterious benefactors, jovial philanthropists, rich relations' wills or just hard work and good luck; many people today are still hoping, like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, for something to turn up.
Personally, I would love bump into some benevolent benefactor in the street, who would decide to give me a good job and ensure the people around me got the help and security they need. Unfortunately that's still in the realm of fiction.
* Individuals are actually often worse off. Without legal dependents, and still classed as 'young,' if I were to loose my job and accommodation I'd be a very low priority for help from the overstretched local authority. And to anyone who says that's what housing benefit is for, that really only covers rent (for a single room) if you're lucky. Deposits, bills etc are another matter. Not to mention getting a landlord who's willing to take you.
Any of that sound familiar? It did to me. As I was reading I kept thinking how little some things have changed. Low paid employees (the retail and service sector today as much as office and manufacturing) are still at the mercy of their employees, particularly temporary or part time workers. Often rules supposedly imposed for the good of employees aren't enforced- even the minimum wage- as employers today complain about employee rights stifling business growth. Well, call me a radical, but I can't help but think that if you can't afford to pay decent wages to your employees and treat them as human beings rather than robots, your business probably has other problems. With plans afoot to refuse legal aid for employment matters the situation isn't likely to get much better. Perhaps we need reminding why some of these laws were brought in.
While reading I kept wondering what Dickens would have written about had he been writing today. Would Fagin's gang have been drug dealers in inner city estates? What would he have had to say about Coketown's post-industrial decline? Would Paris be replaced in A Tale of Two cities by Tripoli, or Kabul, or Cairo?
One thing he wouldn't have had to change is the unpleasant portrayal of bankers and money-lenders. Nicholas Nickleby even has a cameo by a corrupt MP! Unfortunately some things do not change. But sometimes I think we find it hard to accept how little change has been made in some areas. We can accept poverty in past, or far away in Africa. But the statistics that show how many children in this country, in 2011 are living in poverty are too hard to handle. We categorise all those without jobs, for whatever reason, as 'lazy dole scum' and think that all those who are homeless are to blame for their plight.
But today, like in the nineteenth century, it can take very little for a seemingly comfortable family- or individual*- to find themselves in real difficulty- for food, for heating (a BBC report last week said that a fifth of households in Britain are affected by fuel poverty, and costs are still rising) and for accommodation. Selling off council houses was great for the families that could buy them, but no so great for their children who now have little access to affordable housing.
This wasn't intended as rant, merely a reflection on what a modern Dickens would be writing about today. I wonder if there is anyone writing with the same knowledge and ability to evoke the world of the poor as completely as he did? Given our cynicism today it would be quite a challenge to make critics understand what that world is really like, and to stop them in their calls to tear apart the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately, whereas Dickens' characters all seem to end up at least comfortably off- due to mysterious benefactors, jovial philanthropists, rich relations' wills or just hard work and good luck; many people today are still hoping, like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, for something to turn up.
Personally, I would love bump into some benevolent benefactor in the street, who would decide to give me a good job and ensure the people around me got the help and security they need. Unfortunately that's still in the realm of fiction.
* Individuals are actually often worse off. Without legal dependents, and still classed as 'young,' if I were to loose my job and accommodation I'd be a very low priority for help from the overstretched local authority. And to anyone who says that's what housing benefit is for, that really only covers rent (for a single room) if you're lucky. Deposits, bills etc are another matter. Not to mention getting a landlord who's willing to take you.
Monday, 2 August 2010
A Modest Proposal
You know, I've had an idea. I think it could solve a lot of the country's problems, from crime to welfare to NHS spending. It's building on the fine traditions of this country, and should really go a long way towards 'fixing' the broken society we live in (or should that be big society? Or big broken society, or broken big society? Something like that, anyway.).
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Appraisal time
It's that time of year again- appraisals month at work. Everyone gets given a sheet of questions to think about and answer, then you have an interview with someone more senior and discuss it and any concerns they have with you. I know I shouldn't complain too much, I think it's a healthy thing to do, but at the same time it can be difficult and awkward. I struggle to work out how to answer the questions without offending anyone, or making it sound like I'm lazy (or that I'm too keen) without actually lying. Then they try and set targets. Do you know how hard it is to set an identifiable target for a receptionist without getting really petty?
To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...
Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday? The internet?
Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.
How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society isn't bad for a year's work, I guess. Oh, you mean actual office activities. Umm...ok I guess.
Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked. Surely there must be something? Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?
Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes. Do you really want a list? I have a degree, for starters. I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email. I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room? Or give minature lectures on European History?
Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes. We only revieved it six months ago. But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.
Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this? I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any. I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job. As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.
Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.
Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.
Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...
To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...
Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday? The internet?
Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.
How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society isn't bad for a year's work, I guess. Oh, you mean actual office activities. Umm...ok I guess.
Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked. Surely there must be something? Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?
Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes. Do you really want a list? I have a degree, for starters. I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email. I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room? Or give minature lectures on European History?
Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes. We only revieved it six months ago. But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.
Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this? I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any. I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job. As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.
Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.
Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.
Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)