The Lillster Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) What kind of experiance do they look for in Call Centres apparantly I have a very good telephone manner if that counts for anything? Edited June 25, 2009 by The Lillster
Dan_Dare Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Just a willingness to sell your soul to corporate slavery, I think.
nightwolf Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 So I've applied for sales advisors in: Dorothy Perkins Topshop Hollister California O'Neill. If I'm honest I'd prefer the Hollister California job the most, its based on 4-40hours and I could easily do contracted about 25 like I used to at peacocks, plus it'll be a new store. But really I'll take any of them if they'll have me.
Kirkatronics Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 So I've applied for sales advisors in: Dorothy Perkins Topshop Hollister California O'Neill. If I'm honest I'd prefer the Hollister California job the most, its based on 4-40hours and I could easily do contracted about 25 like I used to at peacocks, plus it'll be a new store. But really I'll take any of them if they'll have me. Dont expect to get any, so many people applying. I wish you luck in etting the one you want though
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 So, I has sent off de 12 applications now. Watching for the suckers to get back to me, and hopefully offer me interviews and money in exchange for blood, sweat and workings. Although, I've had two rejection laters so far saying that my application wasn't successful. Although, they were at schools where I didn't think I had much of a chance, but it was worth a shot. One was a school in Merthyr Tdyfil who wanted a teacher who also had a good grasp of Welsh. The other was at a Catholic School in Newport. I am Muslim. Not a match made in heaven. I can just imagine the interview right now, haha. I know they didn't discriminate me based on that, but the job description was telling me that they'd prefer someone with experience in Catholic Schools. I have worked in two Church of England Schools, so I thought that might help. But, it doesn't seem to be what they were looking for.
Paj! Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I was so angry when I heard this; MY godsister (or rather, the daughter of my godmother) is really pretty. Very girly, so not my type, but still, undeniably classy and beautiful. However, she is a stupid fuckwit, so any attraction was dead when I first talked to her when we were like...4 and 3 or whatever. Anyway. She's stupid but beautiful. So, one day (she lives in...East Molesly or something? Near Hampton Court Palace), she's in London, and is approached and asked if she wanted to work in Hollister (Abercrombie & Fitch esque devil establishment), she looked like the type they wanted. That annoyed me firt off, the fact they based it completely on looks, and they (presumably) refuse hundreds of qualified people all the time. Despite my godsister living in the lap of fucking luxury, daughter of a private dentist and a lucrative garage owner. In the ecomonic crisis there are people who actually NEED jobs and money, but this fucking arsehole of a company can pick and choose based on looks, apparently. However, they ARE being sued (YES!) because they hired a girl with only one arm, to join the rest of their "models" (what they call workers), with the promise of working on the shop floor, but then kept her in the backroom, because she asked to wear a cardigan instead of a t-shirt, as she didn't like people seeing her plastic arm too much. It (and similar companis, like Abercrombie) just offend me. The naked men as you walk in, the fact the clothes are boring as fuck, yet ridiculously expensive..all of it. At least people are taking note of the fact that this kind of discrimination can't be allowed to go on.
Will Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I don't see the problem in hiring based on looks, the fit yet stupid people need to work too, right?
Paj! Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 But they hire her through an interview process or anything, they just plain up and asked her, when people who apply fairly but aren't quite vapid enough won't get jobs. It's not a fair hiring process, let alone a good way to go about gaining staff, but I doubt I'm the kind of person Abercrombie/Hollister and the like want in their shops anyway. Last time I went to Abercrombie (to the maze like pitch black one in London), the workers kept giving me dirty looks, so I kept making a point of shouting out in surprise/disgust the prices of everything and how fucking dull it all was.
danny Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 However, they ARE being sued (YES!) because they hired a girl with only one arm, to join the rest of their "models" (what they call workers), with the promise of working on the shop floor, but then kept her in the backroom, because she asked to wear a cardigan instead of a t-shirt, as she didn't like people seeing her plastic arm too much. So they are being sued because they treated a disabled person the same way they treated a 'normal' person. Seems like the only person who had a problem was her. Dont see how she has a case.
Ashley Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 No. They allowed everyone else on the shopfloor, they banished her to the backroom.
Raining_again Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I can understand the persons point. I was covered in a skin condition and I had real difficulty showing my arms in public. And thats nowhere even near the comparison of having a false arm.
Chris the great Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 to be fair, if her arm didnt impact her ability to do her job, i see no problem. her wearing a cardie or somthing long sleve to cover it up is hardly looking bad for the shop staff, i mean, its hardly like they look in uniform any way. in my employment. im on a job center course. i just wanna get straight onto the placment, do some work, but apparently i have to sit in an over crowded, to hot room and do next to nothig all day. there is one girl on it, i swear, if she was any uglier she would be attacking the fellowship of the ring in moria. im not even kidding.
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 there is one girl on it, i swear, if she was any uglier she would be attacking the fellowship of the ring in moria. im not even kidding. Maybe it's late or something, but I pissed myself laughing at that. Haha. It does seem very unfair for the company to do that. Surely they must have thought "Hmm, this girl has a plastic arm. Maybe letting her wear something to conceal it, so that it is not in full view of the public, so that she doesn't get gawped at, maybe letting her wear something like a cardigan isn't a bad thing?"
Pancake Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I think it was just really anal of them, more than anything else, not to let her wear a cardigan.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Time to start harassing stores in person I think.
Ashley Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Got my first rejection response today. Huzzah! :p At least they took the time to respond and its not like a job I really wanted, it just seemed kinda interesting.
danny Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 No. They allowed everyone else on the shopfloor, they banished her to the backroom. Because SHE didnt want to comply with dress policy. Im sorry but i think rules should be for everyone. Not some.
Kirkatronics Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Got my first rejection response today. Huzzah! :p At least they took the time to respond and its not like a job I really wanted, it just seemed kinda interesting.Its nice to get any reply at all. The guy at the dole office says on average 1/30 will actually reply. I had 3 out of 50... So im breaking the curve Its better to know, than it is to keep thinking you may have a chance. Because SHE didnt want to comply with dress policy. Im sorry but i think rules should be for everyone. Not some. Yea, thats when it becomes unfair. If the other staff would have been declined, then so should she. Its not neccesary, its not like a ramp for someone in a wheel chair.
Raining_again Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Because SHE didnt want to comply with dress policy. Im sorry but i think rules should be for everyone. Not some. If I was her workmate, I know I wouldn't care AT ALL for the sake of her feelings. Its not like she's doing it to be an utter twat. Don't point the finger unless you know what its like. For some people with an obvious abnormality; a prosthetic or maybe a severe skin problem, its not a fun thing to have people sniggering and asking rude questions. Have a heart. I have personal experience of this exact thing. I was tortured and bullied, my teacher FORCED me to wear the school regulation P.E skirt despite my severe skin condition. (when we actually had school regulation jogging bottom type things that would have covered my skin)
Kirkatronics Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 If I was her workmate, I know I wouldn't care AT ALL for the sake of her feelings. Its not like she's doing it to be an utter twat. Don't point the finger unless you know what its like. For some people with an obvious abnormality; a prosthetic or maybe a severe skin problem, its not a fun thing to have people sniggering and asking rude questions. Have a heart. I have personal experience of this exact thing. I was tortured and bullied, my teacher FORCED me to wear the school regulation P.E skirt despite my severe skin condition. (when we actually had school regulation jogging bottom type things that would have covered my skin) The point i think hes trying to make is that if people who have conditions like this want to have the same right and equal oppertunities. Then they shouldnt be treated any differently.
Raining_again Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 The point i think hes trying to make is that if people who have conditions like this want to have the same right and equal oppertunities. Then they shouldnt be treated any differently. Blame the ignorant bastards that treat us differently to start with tbf in an ideal world that's all well and good, but we dont really live in an ideal world.
Kirkatronics Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Blame the ignorant bastards that treat us differently to start with tbf in an ideal world that's all well and good, but we dont really live in an ideal world. It then makes it worse by giving them special privelages. IF she wanted that, what if someone else did to be a dickhead? They would have to be allowed it too or its discrimintion.
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I know a lot of people will say "oh, she just wants to fit in." Really, there's no problem with that. However, we have to accept that people are different. Everyone is different in some way or another to somebody else. Most of all, we are different because of our personalities, our character, and also by the way that we look or manage day to day life. She has a plastic arm, which is a big visual difference. Thankfully, technology is pretty good these days, meaning that it perhaps it doesn't quite stick out out of the crowd like it used to. But, at the same time, it is still a plastic arm. I have no idea what it is like to have a plastic arm, or any kind of physical disability, because I have been lucky so far in my life. This girl has had to deal with that, and the way she copes with day to day life is something that I find special. Many people have to overcome adversity in some form, so in her case, her adversity is the fact that she is disabled in this way. Rules are definitely there for a reason. As a store, this shop is providing a service to the public. They have rules to ensure that the public knows that this is a professional establishment. That is why the floors are always clean, why there's lighting, and also why the staff all wear some form of dress code. So that they appear professional. In many shops I've been into, I've found it hard to distinguish the workers from the shoppers, because the dress code was very lax, although the majority of places uses name-tags, which I think is needed. So, the rules are there, in order to ensure that the store remains as a professional establishment. However, the store employed this girl knowing full well of her disability. They employed her with the promise of her being allowed on the shop floor. Like I mentioned earlier, every person is different in their own way, and when shops or businesses employ people they need to understand that. They need to employ people with respect to their differences. This girl didn't want to wear a cardigan to be awkward, she actually was concerned about something that was serious and sensitive to her. The last school I worked at, they employed a male teacher in a wheelchair. As a result of his post, they replaced desks in one classroom with these chairs with these removable desks, allowing the teacher to maneuver around the classroom with little problem. They respect that he was different. Is wearing a cardigan really that much to ask for? In the grand scheme of things, it seems petty, considering the emotional and physical baggage that comes with this girl's disability.
Kirkatronics Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I know a lot of people will say "oh, she just wants to fit in." Really, there's no problem with that. However, we have to accept that people are different. Everyone is different in some way or another to somebody else. Most of all, we are different because of our personalities, our character, and also by the way that we look or manage day to day life. She has a plastic arm, which is a big visual difference. Thankfully, technology is pretty good these days, meaning that it perhaps it doesn't quite stick out out of the crowd like it used to. But, at the same time, it is still a plastic arm. I have no idea what it is like to have a plastic arm, or any kind of physical disability, because I have been lucky so far in my life. This girl has had to deal with that, and the way she copes with day to day life is something that I find special. Many people have to overcome adversity in some form, so in her case, her adversity is the fact that she is disabled in this way. Rules are definitely there for a reason. As a store, this shop is providing a service to the public. They have rules to ensure that the public knows that this is a professional establishment. That is why the floors are always clean, why there's lighting, and also why the staff all wear some form of dress code. So that they appear professional. In many shops I've been into, I've found it hard to distinguish the workers from the shoppers, because the dress code was very lax, although the majority of places uses name-tags, which I think is needed. So, the rules are there, in order to ensure that the store remains as a professional establishment. However, the store employed this girl knowing full well of her disability. They employed her with the promise of her being allowed on the shop floor. Like I mentioned earlier, every person is different in their own way, and when shops or businesses employ people they need to understand that. They need to employ people with respect to their differences. This girl didn't want to wear a cardigan to be awkward, she actually was concerned about something that was serious and sensitive to her. The last school I worked at, they employed a male teacher in a wheelchair. As a result of his post, they replaced desks in one classroom with these chairs with these removable desks, allowing the teacher to maneuver around the classroom with little problem. They respect that he was different. Is wearing a cardigan really that much to ask for? In the grand scheme of things, it seems petty, considering the emotional and physical baggage that comes with this girl's disability. Thats really well written piece, i actually enjoyed reading it. I dont agree with the last bit though. He needed the tables to be able to be moved so he could move. Without this, he wouldnt be able to do his job. She can do her job, and stay within the rules, without the cardi. I may be being ignorant, but this is the way i see it.
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Thats really well written piece, i actually enjoyed reading it.I dont agree with the last bit though. He needed the tables to be able to be moved so he could move. Without this, he wouldnt be able to do his job. She can do her job, and stay within the rules, without the cardi. I may be being ignorant, but this is the way i see it. Thank you. That is true, without those special chairs, it would have been difficult for him to work. But, thinking about the girl, wouldn't it also be difficult for her to do her job if she is always conscious in her own mind of being looked at. The rules are there to be upheld, there's no doubt about it, but the rules are there to ensure that all staff are presentable to the public. You wouldn't want someone walking around in a tank-top serving customers (if the dress code doesn't allow that), because it wouldn't be giving a positive message to customers. She could still be presentable to the public and wear the cardigan. It's in-offensive clothing, in that it wouldn't cause particular offense to anyone. Wearing less clothes to show off skin might be offensive to some people, but I think wearing something just to cover her arms isn't too much to ask for. She could just show off her arms, but then we're back to the issue of her dealing with the emotional issues that come with her disability. Some people are comfortable showing off parts of their body, and others are not. She has a genuine reason for being uncomfortable, so what guarantee is there that she could do her job effectively if she is uncomfortable with the way she is being presented?
Recommended Posts