Mis judged by employer's

[truman 10]

You need good time keeping to get three kids ready for school and then take them to school.

 

The cleaning standards for a factory are likley to be lower than for an hotel, and an home is more similar to an hotel than a factory.

 

Most factory cleaners work unsupervised so they too can take a break whenever they want.

 

 

If you have someone applying for a job,and they have already proved themselves capable in the same role why would an employer risk an unknown quantity..? I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do in every case but I'm speaking generally..

[hyper 10]

Its very relevant for a cleaning job, 13 years of experience cleaning an house with three kids in it, verses six months working as a cleaner in a factory, now if I had an hotel and wanted a cleaner I would probably favour the person with 13 years experience, to simply dismiss them because they have no paid work experience would be daft.

It would be daft, but you continue to assume they are simply dismissed. they are likely to be dismissed in light of other candidates.

 

In terms of relevant experience, you are right ... to a point. And it is good to state this to any potential employer. However, they are not the same.

 

Its very tolerable to clean the toilet (or maybe worse) of your own family. How would one feel cleaning a stranger's mess?

 

You are unlikely to find needles in your own house, yet you might in a hospital/hotel etc. The employer has a duty of care to send you to be trained to know how to handle such stuff?

 

House cleaning can be done (or even missed the odd day) to your own standards. Hotels etc require scheduled cleaning to a standard

 

An industrial vacuum may be more bulky/heavier than a domestic one

 

There is teamworking with strangers to consider in commercial cleaning.

 

You are not comparing apples with apples.

[Obelix 11]

Its very relevant for a cleaning job, 13 years of experience cleaning an house with three kids in it, verses six months working as a cleaner in a factory, now if I had an hotel and wanted a cleaner I would probably favour the person with 13 years experience, to simply dismiss them because they have no paid work experience would be daft.

 

Firstly no one is dismissing that experince so stop the strawman please. The comparison is against relative experience not absolute as well.

 

Your average stay home mom will have the same cleaning experience roughly as a working mom - house still needs cleaning.

 

Now tell me what houses give you experience in the following...

 

Biohazard controls - eg Hep b/c

Sharps - you wouldnt credit the number you get in a building with guest lavatories - be they for druggies or legitamate diabetics I've had both...

Industrial chemicals for cleaning - these need some training even for offices as they are a fair bit more dangerous. Mix the wrong ones and you get chlorine gas...

Using a floor polisher etc. All needs some training..

Discipline and ability to get in and clean it within an alloted time frame...

 

So a stay home mom 13 years experience, vs a 6 months experience - no question. 6 months is going to win every time I'm afraid.

 

Now you amy not like it. but that's how it works.

 

To the OP - don't let people on here get you donw. Get some volunteering work done, get a CV sorted and start looking. If you have proper get up and go that will show through and you will find something.

[Xt500 10]

volunteering work doesn't pay the bills. Ring round the agencys,its the only way into a lot of jobs nowadays.

[anfisa 10]

If you have someone applying for a job,and they have already proved themselves capable in the same role why would an employer risk an unknown quantity..? I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do in every case but I'm speaking generally..

 

If you have two people applying for hotel cleaning jobs and one as worked as an hotel cleaner and the other as not, then you would more than likley employ the one that had. But if one had worked in a different role and the other had 13 years experience running their household then you would be silly to simply dismiss them on the basis that they had not been in paid employment for 13 years.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 16:45 ----------

 

It would be daft, but you continue to assume they are simply dismissed. they are likely to be dismissed in light of other candidates.

 

In terms of relevant experience, you are right ... to a point. And it is good to state this to any potential employer. However, they are not the same.

 

Its very tolerable to clean the toilet (or maybe worse) of your own family. How would one feel cleaning a stranger's mess?

 

You are unlikely to find needles in your own house, yet you might in a hospital/hotel etc. The employer has a duty of care to send you to be trained to know how to handle such stuff?

 

House cleaning can be done (or even missed the odd day) to your own standards. Hotels etc require scheduled cleaning to a standard

 

An industrial vacuum may be more bulky/heavier than a domestic one

 

There is teamworking with strangers to consider in commercial cleaning.

 

You are not comparing apples with apples.

 

I am not comparing anything, just stating that the mom with 13 years experience cleaning their house has skills that can be applied to cleaning an hotel, school or factory, they have time keeping skills, multitasking skills, and I certainly would not dismiss them in favour of someone else simply because they had no paid work experience.

[Tim1 10]

I would also say get to an agency. I don't mean to sound rude I am just putting my opinion here but do you need to put about been a stay at home mum to three kids? Yes state you were raising a family but nip this in the bud. Make out they moved on to better things. As someone who employes people in my mind I would be thinking " there are three kids who could be the reason for you not to show if one was ill or you could not get child care" and as someone else has already said education and training. All my staff do NVQ's in the area of job they do. If I was looking at employing a new person they would be my first choice as it shows commitment. Good luck though

[anfisa 10]

Firstly no one is dismissing that experince so stop the strawman please. The comparison is against relative experience not absolute as well.

 

Your average stay home mom will have the same cleaning experience roughly as a working mom - house still needs cleaning.

 

Now tell me what houses give you experience in the following...

 

Biohazard controls - eg Hep b/c

Sharps - you wouldnt credit the number you get in a building with guest lavatories - be they for druggies or legitamate diabetics I've had both...

Industrial chemicals for cleaning - these need some training even for offices as they are a fair bit more dangerous. Mix the wrong ones and you get chlorine gas...

Using a floor polisher etc. All needs some training..

Discipline and ability to get in and clean it within an alloted time frame...

 

So a stay home mom 13 years experience, vs a 6 months experience - no question. 6 months is going to win every time I'm afraid.

 

Now you amy not like it. but that's how it works.

 

To the OP - don't let people on here get you donw. Get some volunteering work done, get a CV sorted and start looking. If you have proper get up and go that will show through and you will find something.

 

I disagree, it may be how you make it work, but that most definitely does not apply to every employer, I have employed people with no paid work experience over people that had some relevant paid work experience, and any gaps in the skills they needed was solved by giving them some training.

 

The fact that someone has been in paid employment does not mean they are a more suitable candidate than someone with no paid work experience.

[Obelix 11]

You really are missing the point here.....

 

IF ALL OTHER criteria are equal, then experience counts. You keep missing that point - deliberatly I'm sure.

 

Since you cannot debate without mis representing the position - a particularly cowardly form of lying - I'll leave you to your imaginary hiring procedures.

[anfisa 10]

You really are missing the point here.....

 

IF ALL OTHER criteria are equal, then experience counts. You keep missing that point - deliberatly I'm sure.

 

Since you cannot debate without mis representing the position - a particularly cowardly form of lying - I'll leave you to your imaginary hiring procedures.

 

I did not say that it did not count, in fact I am arguing that all experience counts no matter how or where it is gained.

 

Which position do you think I have misrepresented?

Edited January 15, 2015 by anfisa

[peewee84 10]

I'm probably going to get a massive backlash from all those that believe that having kids is a God-given right but...why does popping out 3 kids justify not being in work and living off benefits for 13 years?

 

If you can't pay to bring up your children yourself then why should we, as society, pay for you to have kids and be out of employment for 13 years and then be expected to give you a job at the end of it all? As an anecdote, my mum had 3 kids under 6 by the age of 21. She worked 3 jobs to support us, as well as running a household and supporting my unemployed dad who drank too much (for the record my dad rarely looked after us, we were looked after by my grandma and friends when we weren't at school). She's been employed all her life, has masses of experience, and has successfully brought up 3 decent, hard-working girls. She has demonstrated commitment, enthusiasm and motivation all her life - often in the face of adversity. Many parents, single parents too, manage to work and bring up their kids at the same time. Hard work, but that’s what you sign up for when you decide to have children. Hence why I don’t have any.

 

So my apologies for the negative post, it's just my opinion after all, but I don't believe employers are mis-judging you. I believe that's what they see. As a constructive comment, if you want to try and turn the situation around then do what others are suggesting….show some initiative and enthusiasm by getting some experience by volunteering, putting something back into the community.

[hyper 10]

I'm probably going to get a massive backlash from all those that believe that having kids is a God-given right but...why does popping out 3 kids justify not being in work and living off benefits for 13 years?

 

If you can't pay to bring up your children yourself then why should we, as society, pay for you to have kids and be out of employment for 13 years and then be expected to give you a job at the end of it all? As an anecdote, my mum had 3 kids under 6 by the age of 21. She worked 3 jobs to support us, as well as running a household and supporting my unemployed dad who drank too much (for the record my dad rarely looked after us, we were looked after by my grandma and friends when we weren't at school). She's been employed all her life, has masses of experience, and has successfully brought up 3 decent, hard-working girls. She has demonstrated commitment, enthusiasm and motivation all her life - often in the face of adversity. Many parents, single parents too, manage to work and bring up their kids at the same time. Hard work, but that’s what you sign up for when you decide to have children. Hence why I don’t have any.

 

So my apologies for the negative post, it's just my opinion after all, but I don't believe employers are mis-judging you. I believe that's what they see. As a constructive comment, if you want to try and turn the situation around then do what others are suggesting….show some initiative and enthusiasm by getting some experience by volunteering, putting something back into the community.

bringing up a family and benefits don't go hand in hand. Dad may be working, mum stays at home, everyone pays their way, no benefits involved.

Something probably irrelevant to this thread is narking you and you've thought this is the nearest place to have a pop.

[peewee84 10]

bringing up a family and benefits don't go hand in hand. Dad may be working, mum stays at home, everyone pays their way, no benefits involved.

Something probably irrelevant to this thread is narking you and you've thought this is the nearest place to have a pop.

 

I understand that. However, as you will see written in the original post, the OP mentions being on benefits on this occasion. Hence my reply.