Another Muppet Show In Town?

[jimbms]

I think you will find if a person applies for a job who requires a permit and has qualifications, experience and abilities that cannot be found in a Manx applicant yet are needed for the position, then the company may employ that person and obtain the permit.

[SteveP]

I think you will find if a person applies for a job who requires a permit and has qualifications, experience and abilities that cannot be found in a Manx applicant yet are needed for the position, then the company may employ that person and obtain the permit.

 

Agreed.

 

What I find problematic is this phrase (taken from gov.im) regarding work permits:

 

"It is sometimes difficult to judge who is `suitable' but in general terms it is taken to be someone

who is capable of doing the job to the required standard, not necessarily the best person for the

job."

 

(I added the bold emphasis.)

 

It would be nice if the people who work in our hospitals etc. are always the best people for the job, but the work permit legislation means that sometimes they may not be. (Doctors appear to be exempt though, so maybe there is a recognition that sometimes only the best will do!!)

 

BTW, I think I only referred to those who require permits, and those who already have manx worker status in my original post. I wasn't looking to offend the 'Manx'... (or indeed offend anyone!)

[hboy]

I wasn't looking to offend the 'Manx'... (or indeed offend anyone!)

 

Then why did you post what you did? To refresh your memory your post said

 

There are plenty of people who are competent and well qualified to do specialist jobs on the island but require work permits, while those who haven't really got a clue but have manx worker status have to be employed instead.

 

In what way did you not wish to offend the Manx? Maybe in your world refering to Manx people as people who "haven't got a clue" and who "have to be employed instead" is not offensive but its pretty clear to most Manx people what you said and inferred in your post.

 

Also back to the thread; in what way is envelope stuffing "specialist" work that is jeopordised by the work permit system.

 

Dimwit......

[Mr. Sausages]

What I find problematic is this phrase (taken from gov.im) regarding work permits:

 

"It is sometimes difficult to judge who is `suitable' but in general terms it is taken to be someone

who is capable of doing the job to the required standard, not necessarily the best person for the

job."

 

(I added the bold emphasis.)

 

And how is this relevant to what happened at Bradford & Bingley (or "most errors like this")?

 

It was a basic admin error. The 'required standard' is putting the right letter in the right envelope. It's not a difficult job. Putting letters in envelopes is a great example of the sort of mundane job that doesn't require special skills, and therefore there's no need to employ somebody who requires a permit to do it. That's exactly why they put that sentence in their guide.

 

Anybody employing someone to do a "specialist" job will get around the bold part of your quote by pointing out that the 'required standard' for their role is higher than other candidates can offer.

[Twitch]

I think you will find if a person applies for a job who requires a permit and has qualifications, experience and abilities that cannot be found in a Manx applicant yet are needed for the position, then the company may employ that person and obtain the permit.

 

Agreed.

 

What I find problematic is this phrase (taken from gov.im) regarding work permits:

 

"It is sometimes difficult to judge who is `suitable' but in general terms it is taken to be someone

who is capable of doing the job to the required standard, not necessarily the best person for the

job."

 

(I added the bold emphasis.)

 

It would be nice if the people who work in our hospitals etc. are always the best people for the job, but the work permit legislation means that sometimes they may not be. (Doctors appear to be exempt though, so maybe there is a recognition that sometimes only the best will do!!)

 

BTW, I think I only referred to those who require permits, and those who already have manx worker status in my original post. I wasn't looking to offend the 'Manx'... (or indeed offend anyone!)

 

You really should put your quotes in context before you really piss us all off. Here's the rest of that section...

 

Matters taken into account

 

In deciding whether or not to grant a permit there are certain things which must be considered and others which may be considered.

 

The likelihood of there being suitable Isle of Man workers available for the employment concerned.

 

It is sometimes difficult to judge who is `suitable' but in general terms it is taken to be someone who is capable of doing the job to the required standard, not necessarily the best person for the job. An Isle of Man worker does not have to be unemployed to be `available'. He may be someone who wishes to change employment or he may already be working for the employer and capable of being transferred or promoted. Where Isle of Man workers have applied for an advertised position, the employer is asked to provide brief details why those applicants are considered unsuitable. If that information is considered insufficient, the employer may be asked to provide fuller details including C.V.s and interview appraisal to demonstrate the unsuitability of Isle of Man worker applicants. For self-employment the Committee looks to see if there is a demand for the proposed

service and if so whether there are Isle of Man workers or existing businesses capable of providing it.

[oldmanxfella]

Anybody employing someone to do a "specialist" job will get around the bold part of your quote by pointing out that the 'required standard' for their role is higher than other candidates can offer.

 

I think he's missed the point on specialist jobs - they are specialist jobs because they require specialist skills or qualifications in order to be able to do them. If a local does not have the specialist skills or qualifications to do that job then the work permit situation becomes irrelevant. You can't turn down a work permit for a pharmacist because some guy down the road is Manx and has a CSE in Chemistry.

[Onchanguy]

Was your name and address on the same page as the account details or was there a covering letter and the form with the account details?

 

If it was on the same page then it is an inputting error (Mail Merge?).

 

If there was a covering letter and the account details on separate pages then it is an envelope stuffing error.

 

We should not castigate the person/people who got the job of stuffing envelopes if the printed matter is wrong.

 

If the details are on separate sheets then hang the envelope stuffers high (only kidding... ).

[evilgoblin]

Was your name and address on the same page as the account details or was there a covering letter and the form with the account details?

 

If it was on the same page then it is an inputting error (Mail Merge?).

 

If there was a covering letter and the account details on separate pages then it is an envelope stuffing error.

 

We should not castigate the person/people who got the job of stuffing envelopes if the printed matter is wrong.

 

If the details are on separate sheets then hang the envelope stuffers high (only kidding... ).

 

Always bearing in mind that maybe no-one stuffed the envelopes and it might well have been computer error. Many large organisations with a big mail shot use a fully automated system - printed, folded, inserted into envelope, envelope sealed, franked all my machine. The only function of a human is to put it all in the post box. Perhaps the stuff was then posted in the UK and not the IoM.

[%age]

My thoughts too.

 

We must always remember that whenever the fuck-up fairy visits, it is in reality the computer what done it. No one is actually to blame or anything.

[Jimcalagon]

Actually I think this one is simply a computer error

 

Computers don't make errors - it's the people programming them and using them who make the errors.

[manshimajin]

Don't Bradford and Bingley use window face envelopes? If they do don't blame the stuffers....

 

Had a friend who worked for B&B for a while - his name for them was Bradford and Bungling - seems he may have been right.

[%age]

Actually I think this one is simply a computer error

 

Computers don't make errors - it's the people programming them and using them who make the errors.

 

Yes I know that. But we never get to find out who actually did the programming and if you do happen to drill down then they just say "hey, well it must have been a virus" or the one they said to me last time was "....don't ask me why it did it, ask Bill Gates".

 

Perhaps then it was Mr Nobody's fault.

 

ie just 'the computer'.

[Declan]

You wouldn't expect Bradford & Bingley to name the individual responsible would you? So he can be tarred and feathered outside the Town Hall and then stuck on top of the Christmas Tree.

[Mr. Sausages]

I used to work at a bank and we did a mailshot to all of our customers once. The mailshot was done from Jersey, cos that's where all of the computer systems were.

 

Some got sent to dead ex-customers, addressed to e.g. "Mr Smith Deceased". Obviously their families weren't too impressed and we got several complaints. A month later another mailshot went out and exactly the same thing happened. Of course the manager blamed the computer system in Jersey. I blamed the manager for not finding out if it would happen in the first place, why it happened, and then making sure it didn't happen again.

[P.K.]

And how is this relevant to what happened at Bradford & Bingley (or "most errors like this")?

 

It was a basic admin error. The 'required standard' is putting the right letter in the right envelope. It's not a difficult job. Putting letters in envelopes is a great example of the sort of mundane job that doesn't require special skills, and therefore there's no need to employ somebody who requires a permit to do it. That's exactly why they put that sentence in their guide.

 

Anybody employing someone to do a "specialist" job will get around the bold part of your quote by pointing out that the 'required standard' for their role is higher than other candidates can offer.

It's far more likely that B&B have outsourced their printing and the print shop made a horlicks of it...