Often we read and hear stories in the media about how difficult it is for job seekers to find a job. We read about the rejections that they face when undertaking a search. Often job seekers will complain that they're told that they're under qualified, over qualified, too old, too young and a raft of other different comments that all amount to the same thing...you didn't get the job.
However there is a flipside to this as well. If a job seeker is searching for a job the right way or simply, if they have a lot to offer and know what they want, they will find themselves putting on the other shoes. They'll be the ones doing the rejecting.
So here are some tips if you do find yourself doing the rejecting and what might lead you to reject a company.
When you're job hunting you may find you ace the initial telephone screen and are invited to an interview. As most of us would know, it's imperative to carry out research on a prospective company.
During this research you may discover something about the company that you do not like. It's possible you'll discover that you find out they are only paying commission. By taking a commission only job you're cutting yourself off from other opportunities and selling yourself short. Sure, commission jobs can work out for some people, but for the majority they don't because of ongoing financial commitments.
It's also possible that you'll find upon reading the job description you're under or over qualified, in which case you will feel uncomfortable in the role and it's best in that case if you have any doubts about whether or not you can do the job that you do not take it. Being over qualified is just as bad as being under qualified because no doubt you will find yourself getting bored and wanting more of a challenge.
Then there is the atmosphere that may cause you to reject a company. You could find upon walking into the company's office that the company isn't the right fit. Nobody wants to be going through the job hunting process every couple of months so it's best you hold off until you find the right job, especially if you don't need to worry about money. When you don't need to worry about money you can really focus on finding the right opportunity.
So of course, given that, there are ways to reject a company if you progress to the next stage or are offered a job.
A lot of time and effort would have gone into reading your CV so it is best to thank the prospective employer for their time when you are rejecting them.
In addition, mention in your letter to them what you think is great about the company. It never hurts to say something positive about them, even if you feel as if rejecting them really is the right thing to do and they wouldn't be a good place to work.
Just like employers do when they reject candidates, it doesn't hurt to wish the employer all the best in their future endeavours. Ideally you want to reject the employer tactfully and not burn any bridges, so if you need to decline a second interview or reject an offer then send them an email or tell them when they call you. Don't be someone who just doesn't show up.
An employment arrangement has to work for both parties and ideally that means a long term relationship rather than one that's over in a matter of weeks or months.
Happy hunting employers and candidates!
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Why I have an issue with "new Barbie"
This will be one of those short blogs.
Today toy maker Mattel announced several new Barbie designs. The general gist is people have been whinging about current Barbie not reflecting the public's actual appearance.
There are one or two things that need clarification here.
Barbie is a doll. She is made out of plastic. She represents an ideal. What's wrong with having ideals to aspire to? Would these same people wanting obese and "curvy" Barbies also want a game which essentially motivated to go on drugs and be homeless? Think the anti or opposite of Monopoly. What good would that actually do?
It's nice that people want acceptance but what if something isn't healthy? Should we all start condoning drug usage and addiction because that's what makes some people happy? Of course not. The average person knows that drugs are bad for you and that not being on drugs is much better.
In addition to Barbie being a doll, there is nothing wrong with having one ideal, which people will either love or hate.
I know if I had a choice I would rather look like original Barbie than any one of the newer models. Speaking of, there is a picture of the new models floating around the internet and it shows several of them just wearing skirts or dresses. Not a single Barbie is wearing pants or looks as if she is going to work. Why not? Are women just supposed to be fashion obsessed and not care about our careers? It's a similar principle. It's political correctness gone mad and it's impossible to please everyone because everyone has a different idea of what Barbie should be like.
Sure Mattel wants to be seen as innovative but the only message they're really sending to little people is that it's okay to be obese and unhealthy and that people shouldn't aspire to anything in particular and that is the wrong message to send.
Today toy maker Mattel announced several new Barbie designs. The general gist is people have been whinging about current Barbie not reflecting the public's actual appearance.
There are one or two things that need clarification here.
Barbie is a doll. She is made out of plastic. She represents an ideal. What's wrong with having ideals to aspire to? Would these same people wanting obese and "curvy" Barbies also want a game which essentially motivated to go on drugs and be homeless? Think the anti or opposite of Monopoly. What good would that actually do?
It's nice that people want acceptance but what if something isn't healthy? Should we all start condoning drug usage and addiction because that's what makes some people happy? Of course not. The average person knows that drugs are bad for you and that not being on drugs is much better.
In addition to Barbie being a doll, there is nothing wrong with having one ideal, which people will either love or hate.
I know if I had a choice I would rather look like original Barbie than any one of the newer models. Speaking of, there is a picture of the new models floating around the internet and it shows several of them just wearing skirts or dresses. Not a single Barbie is wearing pants or looks as if she is going to work. Why not? Are women just supposed to be fashion obsessed and not care about our careers? It's a similar principle. It's political correctness gone mad and it's impossible to please everyone because everyone has a different idea of what Barbie should be like.
Sure Mattel wants to be seen as innovative but the only message they're really sending to little people is that it's okay to be obese and unhealthy and that people shouldn't aspire to anything in particular and that is the wrong message to send.
The logistics of sorting out your finances and employment after redundancy
Alrighty folks, I've been talking a fair bit recently about redundancy and the rights of New Zealand citizens in Australia. Today, in this blog I really want to chat a bit about the impact of redundancy when you're not a citizen and steps you can take to minimise your exposure if something bad was to happen and if you were to be made redundant.
If you're a New Zealand citizen living in Australia who arrived after 2001 then you are not eligible for any assistance. That means if you are made redundant or fall ill there is no assistance available to you, so what can you do if you're made redundant?
First thing's first, when you're in secure employment take out redundancy insurance. You must have been working for the last 12 months to qualify and before the policy will pay out you must hold it for six months so potentially you could get it the day you start a new job so long as you have been working regularly.
In addition, take out income protection insurance. Income protection insurance can cover you from illness and disability and some policies have the redundancy add on so you'll only need the one policy. Again, there is normally a stand down period but this will protect you should something unexpected happen.
While you are working, save, save, save. It doesn't matter if you have it in shares, a term deposit or even a money tin. Just make sure you save. If you are made redundant then these savings will come in handy and tide you over while you are job hunting.
That's another thing. If you have no safety net available to you and are made redundant then firstly, try and find a casual job to tide you over while you hunt for another permanent full time job. This will mean you have a smaller gap on your resume and that you have some money coming in. By taking a casual job you will also be able to apply only for those jobs for which you are truly suited.
But worst case scenario, you may need to lean on friends while you are sorting yourself out if you weren't able to prepare, and often, more often than not, redundancy does come as a major shock to people. If you are leaning on your friends then make it your full time job to find a job. That means applying for jobs from the moment you wake up to the moment business closes for the day and even checking job sites while you are home at night on your phone. The days of 9-5 have well and truly gone. When you're not applying for jobs you should be at interviews and when you're not at interviews you should be job hunting. If you try hard enough then you will be able to sort things out swiftly.
The major thing to focus on is that nobody is immune from redundancy but there are steps you can take to minimise the effect it will have on your life. Saving and taking out insurance are big ones.
If you're a New Zealand citizen living in Australia who arrived after 2001 then you are not eligible for any assistance. That means if you are made redundant or fall ill there is no assistance available to you, so what can you do if you're made redundant?
First thing's first, when you're in secure employment take out redundancy insurance. You must have been working for the last 12 months to qualify and before the policy will pay out you must hold it for six months so potentially you could get it the day you start a new job so long as you have been working regularly.
In addition, take out income protection insurance. Income protection insurance can cover you from illness and disability and some policies have the redundancy add on so you'll only need the one policy. Again, there is normally a stand down period but this will protect you should something unexpected happen.
While you are working, save, save, save. It doesn't matter if you have it in shares, a term deposit or even a money tin. Just make sure you save. If you are made redundant then these savings will come in handy and tide you over while you are job hunting.
That's another thing. If you have no safety net available to you and are made redundant then firstly, try and find a casual job to tide you over while you hunt for another permanent full time job. This will mean you have a smaller gap on your resume and that you have some money coming in. By taking a casual job you will also be able to apply only for those jobs for which you are truly suited.
But worst case scenario, you may need to lean on friends while you are sorting yourself out if you weren't able to prepare, and often, more often than not, redundancy does come as a major shock to people. If you are leaning on your friends then make it your full time job to find a job. That means applying for jobs from the moment you wake up to the moment business closes for the day and even checking job sites while you are home at night on your phone. The days of 9-5 have well and truly gone. When you're not applying for jobs you should be at interviews and when you're not at interviews you should be job hunting. If you try hard enough then you will be able to sort things out swiftly.
The major thing to focus on is that nobody is immune from redundancy but there are steps you can take to minimise the effect it will have on your life. Saving and taking out insurance are big ones.
Friday, January 22, 2016
First New Zealand student loan defaulter arrested at the border, has home worth $300k
It was bound to happen sooner or later. The New Zealand Government had been warning people for a couple of years that if they did not make any attempt to pay their student loan there would be consequences. They made it very clear that 20 people were being monitored and facing arrest if they entered the country.
The first arrest has taken place.
Ngatokotoru Puna, living in Rarotonga was arrested when he tried to depart New Zealand.
He has a student loan debt of $130,000 and had not made any repayments for several years despite letters from the IRD.
Instead he made excuses saying he had five children and a mortgage of $300,000.
There are a couple of things that don't add up.
How can you afford a $300,000 mortgage on a $30,000 salary? No bank would give you a mortgage of that size with an income that low.
How can you have five children yet not make a single payment on your student loan?
How can you ignore letters from the IRD? Everyone can afford $5 or $10 here or there. There's no excuse for not paying it for 12 years.
Why would you take out a $300,000 mortgage but not fulfill your student loan repayment obligations?
Yes, some people cannot afford to make the minimum repayments but there are options available to these people.
They can contact the IRD or make periodic payments of what they can afford rather than deliberately choosing not to pay a single solitary cent.
All this said, the New Zealand student loan system needs reform.
When people are living overseas they may not be citizens and that ultimately means they must have savings if they get into a tricky situation or they face being homeless.
If you are living in New Zealand then your income is taken into consideration when calculating your student loan repayments, however that is not the case for those living overseas.
It is simply, "pay x amount, or else."
But how can you get $5000 out of a low income? Are people overseas supposed to be homeless so they can pay their student loan when those living in NZ could effectively be on welfare and not required to ever pay a single cent?
Income must be taken into consideration.
Then there is the matter of interest.
Interest for those living overseas is 5.5% which means that some people could effectively see their student loan constantly increase while they are making an effort to repay.
How is that in the government's best interests? Cutting interest in favour of a flat fee of say $200 or $500 per year would be more effective rather than creating a disincentive to pay back the student loan.
In addition, confiscating the passports of people who default on their student loans is counter productive, especially if they have jobs overseas. That could end up costing the taxpayer in the long term if they are forced to remain in NZ when they have employment overseas.
It is time the student loan system was reformed so that people can pay their student loans back based on what they earn rather than a gun being held to their head and being forced to pay what the genuinely cannot afford whilst those in NZ are not subject to the same harsh conditions.
The first arrest has taken place.
Ngatokotoru Puna, living in Rarotonga was arrested when he tried to depart New Zealand.
He has a student loan debt of $130,000 and had not made any repayments for several years despite letters from the IRD.
Instead he made excuses saying he had five children and a mortgage of $300,000.
There are a couple of things that don't add up.
How can you afford a $300,000 mortgage on a $30,000 salary? No bank would give you a mortgage of that size with an income that low.
How can you have five children yet not make a single payment on your student loan?
How can you ignore letters from the IRD? Everyone can afford $5 or $10 here or there. There's no excuse for not paying it for 12 years.
Why would you take out a $300,000 mortgage but not fulfill your student loan repayment obligations?
Yes, some people cannot afford to make the minimum repayments but there are options available to these people.
They can contact the IRD or make periodic payments of what they can afford rather than deliberately choosing not to pay a single solitary cent.
All this said, the New Zealand student loan system needs reform.
When people are living overseas they may not be citizens and that ultimately means they must have savings if they get into a tricky situation or they face being homeless.
If you are living in New Zealand then your income is taken into consideration when calculating your student loan repayments, however that is not the case for those living overseas.
It is simply, "pay x amount, or else."
But how can you get $5000 out of a low income? Are people overseas supposed to be homeless so they can pay their student loan when those living in NZ could effectively be on welfare and not required to ever pay a single cent?
Income must be taken into consideration.
Then there is the matter of interest.
Interest for those living overseas is 5.5% which means that some people could effectively see their student loan constantly increase while they are making an effort to repay.
How is that in the government's best interests? Cutting interest in favour of a flat fee of say $200 or $500 per year would be more effective rather than creating a disincentive to pay back the student loan.
In addition, confiscating the passports of people who default on their student loans is counter productive, especially if they have jobs overseas. That could end up costing the taxpayer in the long term if they are forced to remain in NZ when they have employment overseas.
It is time the student loan system was reformed so that people can pay their student loans back based on what they earn rather than a gun being held to their head and being forced to pay what the genuinely cannot afford whilst those in NZ are not subject to the same harsh conditions.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Treatment of Kiwis in Australia falls on deaf ears
The New Zealand Herald today reported that New Zealanders are the most ignorant nation out of those in developed countries.
You don't have to read the NZ Herald to know this, although, by reading the New Zealand Herald your knowledge will be confirmed if you already know this.
This research actually came out back in December in both New Zealand and Australia. The fact it was released again shows two things.
1 - People aren't paying attention.
2 - Writers at the New Zealand Herald are also ignorant.
That isn't the purpose of tonight's article though. Tonight's article is actually about the ignorance into the treatment of New Zealand citizens in Australia.
The New Zealand media keeps on hammering into people that if you're a New Zealand citizen living in Australia and you fall on hard times you're on your own. Neither the NZ, nor the Australian Government want to know about you.
You are effectively in no man's land and even though you hold citizenship in one country, if you move from NZ to Australia and fall on hard times there is no assistance.
I've talked about this before, and in the past I've talked about how people who come to Australia shouldn't abuse the system, that they should work hard and contribute to the country.
There are a couple of things that are unfair about this.
You can do everything right but then fall on hard times and what happens then? Well my friends, because of the NZ citizens who moved over to Australia prior to 2001 there is no assistance whatsoever. You are persona non grata.
How is this fair? How is it fair that the welcome mat is rolled out for asylum seekers yet NZ citizens are treated like dirt? How is that fair? How is it fair that employers hold all the power and the employee none? How is it fair that you can be turfed out without anywhere to go?
If you're lucky you will have friends, but what if you didn't? What if you didn't have friends who could help you out? The simple answer, in no uncertain terms is you would be out on the street.
We always hear in the Australian media that asylum seekers and other immigrants who were granted refugee status abuse the system, but what about the Aussies abusing the system? What about the Aussies who don't care about this country?
I want to elaborate on this point. People draw attention to immigrants abusing the system because it's easy to do so.
Immigrants in any country are vulnerable.
Being a New Zealand citizen living in Australia does not mean you're basically an Aussie or that you're treated as such because you aren't.
Now you see why I mentioned the comment about ignorance earlier. People actually aren't aware that Kiwis living in Australia are shafted.
I briefly touched on this in previous blogs. If that's the case and you've fallen on hard times some would say to move back to New Zealand but that isn't logical. For starters there are fewer jobs available and the recruitment process is worse in New Zealand. In Australia there is more of a "we'll give you a go" attitude, whereas in New Zealand there isn't, and that's assuming you can even get an interview in NZ.
Therefore it makes more sense for New Zealand citizens to stay in Australia.
Lack of government support does however make them vulnerable. It means they have to take absolutely anything they can get and that may mean taking work that isn't suitable for them, or where they'll be exploited.
Of course casual work is better than no work at all but casual work doesn't pay the bills and you can't turn around to your landlord one week or your power company and say, "I don't feel like paying this week", they'd laugh and turf you out on the street or cut your power.
For some NZ citizens living in Australia there is no option of going back to New Zealand because to do so would put them in a worse situation long term - they'd be unemployed and homeless from the moment they stepped back into the country and then they'd be on welfare. That is no way for someone to live long term.
Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett however disagrees, saying that those in New Zealand looking for housing on the social housing wait list should move out of Auckland. Does she not comprehend that although it may fill those houses in the regions it will lead them into a cycle of poverty that they cannot get out of? It will mean they are dependent on the state for much longer than they need to be because of fewer job opportunities outside of Auckland.
That's not productive.
It's a similar scenario in Australia, by providing temporary assistance for New Zealand citizens in Australia you're actually ensuring that they're productive residents of Australia long term.
Now some of you reading this will say, "why don't you just get citizenship and apply for PR?"
The answer to this is complex. New Zealand citizens can work indefinitely in Australia without sponsorship so there is no incentive for an employer to sponsor them for permanent residency, and how can you get sponsorship or afford permanent residency when you need stable long term employment first? It's a catch 22 situation that puts NZ citizens in a really difficult situation.
I'm not saying NZ citizens should get a free ride in Australia because absolutely they shouldn't, and in reality, the less desirable migrants ruined things for the genuine ones during the Howard years. What I am saying is that New Zealand citizens living in Australia are, in some cases here permanently, and in some cases going back to New Zealand is simply not an option.
In some cases people are in the long term better off in Australia because looking long term, these people are the lifters, they aren't the leaners. These are the people who would do anything for Australia, and it's not fair that they are shafted and have no certainty when they are temporarily in a tricky situation.
It's not fair that employers can pay such low wages or employ them on such a casual basis that they can't at all plan their future or save for a rainy day.
New Zealand citizens need a clear cut pathway to permanent residency and citizenship, not a pathway that effectively sees them shafted.
And here's the real kicker, because New Zealand citizens living in Australia have no political voice there is no incentive to even help them out when they are normally contributing members of society, so they get shafted.
Sadly, many New Zealand citizens and even Australians do not even realise that they have no support if things turn sour. People genuinely have no idea that there is no short term assistance whatsoever.
You're persona non grata with neither the NZ government, nor the Australian government wanting to know you.
It's not right.
You don't have to read the NZ Herald to know this, although, by reading the New Zealand Herald your knowledge will be confirmed if you already know this.
This research actually came out back in December in both New Zealand and Australia. The fact it was released again shows two things.
1 - People aren't paying attention.
2 - Writers at the New Zealand Herald are also ignorant.
That isn't the purpose of tonight's article though. Tonight's article is actually about the ignorance into the treatment of New Zealand citizens in Australia.
The New Zealand media keeps on hammering into people that if you're a New Zealand citizen living in Australia and you fall on hard times you're on your own. Neither the NZ, nor the Australian Government want to know about you.
You are effectively in no man's land and even though you hold citizenship in one country, if you move from NZ to Australia and fall on hard times there is no assistance.
I've talked about this before, and in the past I've talked about how people who come to Australia shouldn't abuse the system, that they should work hard and contribute to the country.
There are a couple of things that are unfair about this.
You can do everything right but then fall on hard times and what happens then? Well my friends, because of the NZ citizens who moved over to Australia prior to 2001 there is no assistance whatsoever. You are persona non grata.
How is this fair? How is it fair that the welcome mat is rolled out for asylum seekers yet NZ citizens are treated like dirt? How is that fair? How is it fair that employers hold all the power and the employee none? How is it fair that you can be turfed out without anywhere to go?
If you're lucky you will have friends, but what if you didn't? What if you didn't have friends who could help you out? The simple answer, in no uncertain terms is you would be out on the street.
We always hear in the Australian media that asylum seekers and other immigrants who were granted refugee status abuse the system, but what about the Aussies abusing the system? What about the Aussies who don't care about this country?
I want to elaborate on this point. People draw attention to immigrants abusing the system because it's easy to do so.
Immigrants in any country are vulnerable.
Being a New Zealand citizen living in Australia does not mean you're basically an Aussie or that you're treated as such because you aren't.
Now you see why I mentioned the comment about ignorance earlier. People actually aren't aware that Kiwis living in Australia are shafted.
I briefly touched on this in previous blogs. If that's the case and you've fallen on hard times some would say to move back to New Zealand but that isn't logical. For starters there are fewer jobs available and the recruitment process is worse in New Zealand. In Australia there is more of a "we'll give you a go" attitude, whereas in New Zealand there isn't, and that's assuming you can even get an interview in NZ.
Therefore it makes more sense for New Zealand citizens to stay in Australia.
Lack of government support does however make them vulnerable. It means they have to take absolutely anything they can get and that may mean taking work that isn't suitable for them, or where they'll be exploited.
Of course casual work is better than no work at all but casual work doesn't pay the bills and you can't turn around to your landlord one week or your power company and say, "I don't feel like paying this week", they'd laugh and turf you out on the street or cut your power.
For some NZ citizens living in Australia there is no option of going back to New Zealand because to do so would put them in a worse situation long term - they'd be unemployed and homeless from the moment they stepped back into the country and then they'd be on welfare. That is no way for someone to live long term.
Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett however disagrees, saying that those in New Zealand looking for housing on the social housing wait list should move out of Auckland. Does she not comprehend that although it may fill those houses in the regions it will lead them into a cycle of poverty that they cannot get out of? It will mean they are dependent on the state for much longer than they need to be because of fewer job opportunities outside of Auckland.
That's not productive.
It's a similar scenario in Australia, by providing temporary assistance for New Zealand citizens in Australia you're actually ensuring that they're productive residents of Australia long term.
Now some of you reading this will say, "why don't you just get citizenship and apply for PR?"
The answer to this is complex. New Zealand citizens can work indefinitely in Australia without sponsorship so there is no incentive for an employer to sponsor them for permanent residency, and how can you get sponsorship or afford permanent residency when you need stable long term employment first? It's a catch 22 situation that puts NZ citizens in a really difficult situation.
I'm not saying NZ citizens should get a free ride in Australia because absolutely they shouldn't, and in reality, the less desirable migrants ruined things for the genuine ones during the Howard years. What I am saying is that New Zealand citizens living in Australia are, in some cases here permanently, and in some cases going back to New Zealand is simply not an option.
In some cases people are in the long term better off in Australia because looking long term, these people are the lifters, they aren't the leaners. These are the people who would do anything for Australia, and it's not fair that they are shafted and have no certainty when they are temporarily in a tricky situation.
It's not fair that employers can pay such low wages or employ them on such a casual basis that they can't at all plan their future or save for a rainy day.
New Zealand citizens need a clear cut pathway to permanent residency and citizenship, not a pathway that effectively sees them shafted.
And here's the real kicker, because New Zealand citizens living in Australia have no political voice there is no incentive to even help them out when they are normally contributing members of society, so they get shafted.
Sadly, many New Zealand citizens and even Australians do not even realise that they have no support if things turn sour. People genuinely have no idea that there is no short term assistance whatsoever.
You're persona non grata with neither the NZ government, nor the Australian government wanting to know you.
It's not right.
TV3 News Department NZ facing more changes in the wake of declining revenue
For several months now, New Zealand network, TV3, owned by Mediaworks has been in severe trouble and strife.
It started with the axing of long running current affairs show Campbell Live on the 29th of May last year.
Since then the entire news department has faced trouble with mergers of departments and content. The Paul Henry Show is broadcast on television and radio.
The Midday News was cut, and Nightline was replaced with Newsworthy hosted by Sam Hayes and David Farrier. Last week it was announced by the network that Farrier was leaving to pursue other interests leaving Hayes to front the show solo.
Today Mediaworks announced that the 6pm News was going to be axed. News will still be broadcast at 6pm, however it will now be under the brand NewsHub instead of Three News.
The content will be different to how it used to be. Instead of delivering facts only, this show will have opinions and entertainment mixed in.
Former TV3 presenter Rachel Smalley has weighed into the debate saying that networks need to evolve however based on comments on social media and New Zealand news sites the sentiment is not the same, with people saying they just want the news delivered straight without opinion.
This comes a week after Bauer Media in Australia announced the closure of 44 year old magazine Cleo due to declining sales.
The question I have to ask is, have media executives sat down and asked why people are switching off? Is it because media behaviour has changed? Or is it because the content is no longer up to scratch?
Of course ratings dictate what will be published, however if ratings are falling it is time to ask why rather than starving the public of important news and information. Doing so will only lead to further declines, although that is beneficial for independent bloggers and newscasters who will no doubt capitalise on a growing desire for independently researched and analysed articles.
It started with the axing of long running current affairs show Campbell Live on the 29th of May last year.
Since then the entire news department has faced trouble with mergers of departments and content. The Paul Henry Show is broadcast on television and radio.
The Midday News was cut, and Nightline was replaced with Newsworthy hosted by Sam Hayes and David Farrier. Last week it was announced by the network that Farrier was leaving to pursue other interests leaving Hayes to front the show solo.
Today Mediaworks announced that the 6pm News was going to be axed. News will still be broadcast at 6pm, however it will now be under the brand NewsHub instead of Three News.
The content will be different to how it used to be. Instead of delivering facts only, this show will have opinions and entertainment mixed in.
Former TV3 presenter Rachel Smalley has weighed into the debate saying that networks need to evolve however based on comments on social media and New Zealand news sites the sentiment is not the same, with people saying they just want the news delivered straight without opinion.
This comes a week after Bauer Media in Australia announced the closure of 44 year old magazine Cleo due to declining sales.
The question I have to ask is, have media executives sat down and asked why people are switching off? Is it because media behaviour has changed? Or is it because the content is no longer up to scratch?
Of course ratings dictate what will be published, however if ratings are falling it is time to ask why rather than starving the public of important news and information. Doing so will only lead to further declines, although that is beneficial for independent bloggers and newscasters who will no doubt capitalise on a growing desire for independently researched and analysed articles.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Cultural issues in call centres
Once upon a time in a land far, far away people thought that working at McDonalds was torture and that if you did that you were a pleb, or a minion. Well my fellow readers, there is a new kind of hell that some people have been subjected to in the name of cost cutting.
Now, before I go into the details of that I first need to share my opinion. Cost cutting doesn't help anyone. Cost cutting can do more harm than good in the long run.
The new type of hell I'm referring to involves the people who work in call centres. Now do not get me wrong, there are some people who genuinely enjoy call centre work and love dealing with people. There are some people who see it as a career path and good on them, but for many staff, a call centre is simply a temporary means to an end.
Before putting this article together I researched the top things that annoy call centre staf and the top issues that really need addressing to create better environments for call centre staff.
No Mr Manager, shouting at your staff in team meetings is not motivating. Shouting at staff while they're on the floor making or taking calls is also not motivating. It's rather annoying. You wouldn't like to be shouted at yourself, so even though you've worked your way up to being a manager show some respect to your staff. Shouting is the opposite of respect.
Monitoring calls and breaks. This comes down to micromanagement. Yes, yes, yes. We all now time is money however most people will get annoyed when they're being micromanaged. Most people will take issue with having their every step monitored. It just puts them on edge and makes them feel as if they're back in primary school. That's not the way to treat your staff if you want results.
Yes call centre staff do deal with a lot of personal information however despite what call centre managers or other managers (who've probably never sat foot in a call centre say) say, using your mobile phone isn't going to affect your performance. In fact, having a little bit of freedom and room to breathe will actually help you perform better. Would you like someone constantly monitoring what you can and can't do? Sure a job has to be done but staff perform best when they feel valued. If you just give a little then they'll be happier and a happier employee is a more productive employee. You would also think that in the early recruitment stages you'd establish that the staff you're hiring are honest. How about trusting them more rather than treating them like children? Not all staff who use their mobile phone are going to steal confidential information, and those who would shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
Not letting staff go off script is really self explanatory. You might as well hire a robot. That is actually what call centre managers want. They don't want people. They don't want opinions. They want robotic yes people who will just recite the company lines over and over again. That's not always possible because call centre people are dealing with people and sometimes you can't script a real life conversation, especially when only one person on the call has a copy of that script. But really, nobody talks like that in real life and consumers know this. They know when someone is being genuine and when they're not. If you're reading from a script you're going to come across as fake and insincere, even if you're a good actor.
Dress codes. Nobody sees people who work in call centres. Nobody on a call is going to know if you're dressed well or not. How you dress is not going to motivate you to do your job better. It's time managers realised they're dealing with people not robots and when people are relaxed they'll perform better.
The best managers do not breathe down the necks of their staff. Instead they give their staff space and trust them.
It is no wonder the industry has such high turnover especially when staff are being shouted at by managers and customers for eight hours a day.
Staff, when dealing with rude people all day need to be treated better by management or turnover will only keep increasing from 44%.
Now, before I go into the details of that I first need to share my opinion. Cost cutting doesn't help anyone. Cost cutting can do more harm than good in the long run.
The new type of hell I'm referring to involves the people who work in call centres. Now do not get me wrong, there are some people who genuinely enjoy call centre work and love dealing with people. There are some people who see it as a career path and good on them, but for many staff, a call centre is simply a temporary means to an end.
Before putting this article together I researched the top things that annoy call centre staf and the top issues that really need addressing to create better environments for call centre staff.
No Mr Manager, shouting at your staff in team meetings is not motivating. Shouting at staff while they're on the floor making or taking calls is also not motivating. It's rather annoying. You wouldn't like to be shouted at yourself, so even though you've worked your way up to being a manager show some respect to your staff. Shouting is the opposite of respect.
Monitoring calls and breaks. This comes down to micromanagement. Yes, yes, yes. We all now time is money however most people will get annoyed when they're being micromanaged. Most people will take issue with having their every step monitored. It just puts them on edge and makes them feel as if they're back in primary school. That's not the way to treat your staff if you want results.
Yes call centre staff do deal with a lot of personal information however despite what call centre managers or other managers (who've probably never sat foot in a call centre say) say, using your mobile phone isn't going to affect your performance. In fact, having a little bit of freedom and room to breathe will actually help you perform better. Would you like someone constantly monitoring what you can and can't do? Sure a job has to be done but staff perform best when they feel valued. If you just give a little then they'll be happier and a happier employee is a more productive employee. You would also think that in the early recruitment stages you'd establish that the staff you're hiring are honest. How about trusting them more rather than treating them like children? Not all staff who use their mobile phone are going to steal confidential information, and those who would shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
Not letting staff go off script is really self explanatory. You might as well hire a robot. That is actually what call centre managers want. They don't want people. They don't want opinions. They want robotic yes people who will just recite the company lines over and over again. That's not always possible because call centre people are dealing with people and sometimes you can't script a real life conversation, especially when only one person on the call has a copy of that script. But really, nobody talks like that in real life and consumers know this. They know when someone is being genuine and when they're not. If you're reading from a script you're going to come across as fake and insincere, even if you're a good actor.
Dress codes. Nobody sees people who work in call centres. Nobody on a call is going to know if you're dressed well or not. How you dress is not going to motivate you to do your job better. It's time managers realised they're dealing with people not robots and when people are relaxed they'll perform better.
The best managers do not breathe down the necks of their staff. Instead they give their staff space and trust them.
It is no wonder the industry has such high turnover especially when staff are being shouted at by managers and customers for eight hours a day.
Staff, when dealing with rude people all day need to be treated better by management or turnover will only keep increasing from 44%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)