8th November 2010, 10:47 AM
I took time out before taking up a degree, and volunteered on a few research excavations, and worked for a commercial unit on a subsistence wage back in 1985. That gave me a total of about three months experience, and a marvellous introduction to the hideous living conditions people were putting up with then (and some clearly couldn't care less about improving them). It almost decided me against carrying on....but after uni I did, and knew what to expect (could it only get better?). If I hadn't experienced commercial work I wouldn't have had a clue, and probably would have appeared a "newbie" on site. Strikes me that distinction is one that should have long since been ironed out, simply because it encourages (out of sheer practical necessity) of favouring the baptised by mud over the squeaky clean, which is a fairly daft way of running the show, to be honest, embitters people on both sides of the rather unnecessary fence, and engenders a lot of posturing (not that the posturing is without basis in that cold wet and muddy reality...). One thought - will we see a return to schemes where the unemployed yet again get seconded out to commercial companies of all types for no pay except subsistence - great for training people up, if they're willing to do that, and definitely cheap for the price - but does anyone want to go down that road again? Different times - surely?