uk directory-joygov.com

<br>    &lt;p&gt; Yinfeng ceramic bone china tableware, coffee gift porcelain.<br>&lt;br /&gt; company was founded in 1937, the Secretary, the main producing white porcelain bowl. Mug, 1993, produces high-quality porcelain tableware. Coffee export more than 60 countries and currently employs more than 4,500 bone china is the world&#39;s most recognized types of high-grade porcelain, bone china is now to build two production lines, there are more than 2,000 jobs.

<br>    &lt;p&gt; Yinfeng Bone<br>&lt;br /&gt; company was founded in 1937, the Secretary, the main producing white porcelain bowl. Mug, 1993, produces high-quality porcelain tableware. Coffee export more than 60 countries and currently employs more than 4,500 bone china is the world&#39;s most recognized types of high-grade porcelain, bone china is now to build two production lines, there are more than 2,000 jobs.

New research suggests that attractive people are more likely to be chosen for jobs than people who are thought to be less aesthetically pleasing.

Twinkling eyes and shiny hair appear to count for more than appropriate experience or specialist skills, the study from employment law firm Peninsula revealed.

And despite employers realising that this is bad form, many admit to choosing an attractive but less experienced candidate than a less-attractive but better qualified rival.

Some 88 per cent of interviewers told Peninsula that they have knowingly picked a job applicant based on looks alone. However, a further 92 per cent said that making a good impression at a job interview is down to physical appearance.

Wearing a clean, crisp outfit and looking well-presented is almost as important for job seekers as the information included in a CV. While this information is included in all good job guides and people looking for graduate jobs are reminded of interview presentation, candidates could end up the victims of discrimination.

This is something that interviewers need to be wary of when lining people up for new jobs, explained the firm’s head of diversity David Price.

He told Online Recruitment: “It seems that many interviewers are guilty when it comes to looks influencing their decision. I was surprised at the number of people who have based an employment decision on looks and it’s turning into a new form of modern discrimination. Using such a strategy is not without legal risk.

“Most employers know better than to base employment decisions on appearance that is related to legally protected factors such as race, age or disability but it seems occasionally these factors are abandoned.”

Attractive celebrities who had different careers before becoming famous include actor Sean Connery. The James Bond of the 70s earned his money as a milkman – perhaps due to his handsome appearance in the white coat and cap.

Other brooding leading man Johnny Depp sold stationary before becoming one of the best-known faces in Hollywood. However, the actor’s good looks probably did little to bag him the role as instead of selling pens and paperclips face-to-face, he was based in a call centre.

“You’re calling people who don’t want you to call them,” he said of the experience. “You put on your best fake voice and try and sell them a gross or two of ballpoint pens with their name printed on them”

Some commentators have lamented that a new feminism has displaced its militant 1970s cousin, which forcefully demanded equal rights for both genders and urged women to hang up their aprons and take up their rightful place in the workplace.

If some critics are to be believed, women forsaking their high-powered careers to have children and become home-makers or take up flexible working for the sake of the kids, is the new breed of women’s rights that has taken over in recent years.

But according to new research published today, women are still as eager as their male counterparts to make it in the cut-throat, dog-eat-dog corporate world.

A study by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex has found that working mothers are happier than stay-at-home mums no matter how many extra hours they have to put in at the office.

Even mothers who work more than 45 hours a week enjoy much higher levels of life satisfaction than mothers who are full-time “domestic goddesses”.

This new research flies in the face of the common public perception that women with small children are much happier and feel much more personally fulfilled if they sacrifice a full-time career to spend more time tending to their children and running the household.

Research conducted by the Centre for Policy Studies three years ago, concluded that almost half of all mothers who are working have jobs purely because they need the money.

The findings of the Institute for Social and Economic Research’s research casts a certain level of doubt over the popularity of David Cameron’s promise to offer tax breaks to married couples, which was announced in a bid to encourage more mothers to stay at home.

The report, which is entitled Job Satisfaction and Family Happiness, also found that job satisfaction for women with partners is greater when they work part-time, regardless of how small or large these jobs are.

In addition to this, mothers who work between 30 and 34 hours a week and 41 and 45 hours a week also remarkably reported high levels of wellbeing and personal satisfaction.

The common perception is that the best, high-powered London jobs are the most stressful and working mothers find it extrememly difficult to strike a successful work-home balance, with their children and family life bearing the brunt of this.

However, as these results illustrate, women certainly aren’t complaining. They clearly relish the challenge of being both successful mothers and career women and see no reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.

Speaking to the Times Online, the report’s authors, Alison Booth and Jan Van Ours, said: “Women without children do not care about their working hours, while women with children are significantly happier if they have a job, regardless of how many hours it entails.”

It is certaily not an either/or situation for the nation’s working mothers as it seems that they are more than quite content to have their cake and eat it. Girl power indeed.

A job can be hard to hold down sometimes – no matter how many accolades you win and success you garner for your organisation.

Just look at poor Jose Mourinho. Hailed as the Special One (albeit by himself, admittedly), you might have thought that being the most successful manager in the history of Chelsea Football Club by some distance would guarantee him a job for life. But it seems that life in the football world is not as straightforward as that.

London jobs can be high-pressure and demand an awful lot of attention, but those are usually the ones confined to the City’s square mile, not the more refined pastures of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. But Mourinho’s departure highlights the gulf between ‘normal’ jobs and the football merry-go-round.

Mourinho has left Chelsea, apparently by “mutual consent”, but there are plenty of people coming forward to suggest this was far from a friendly parting of the ways at the club. Some have suggested the flamboyant Portuguese was the loser in a power struggle at Stamford Bridge with owner big spender, Roman Abramovich. There have even been murmurings that the Special One could be being lined up for a stint at Manchester United, although these are at the more fanciful end of a rumour mill that has gone into overdrive following the announcement of his departure.

But surely the former Porto boss had done a good job at Chelsea, hadn’t he? Two championship titles and three other cup wins to his name suggest he had a good time of it, but perhaps his departure says something more about the changing face of English football. A manager’s job now is not only to get results on the pitch, but also to balance the books off it.

Mourinho may be able to boast an impressive silverware haul, but the club paid out huge sums of money for those accolades and the manager never won the most valuable – both in terms of prize money and kudos – prize of the Champion’s League, the elite European competition. Indeed, Fool.co.uk has already suggested that the Special One’s failure to balance the books during his time at Chelsea may have been instrumental in his downfall.

“No matter how much money Mr Abramovich puts into the club, Chelsea will still need to make money. Jose’s gambles in the transfer market have paid off on the pitch, but the financial impact of his big signings may have cost him his job,” argues David Kuo, head of personal finance at Fool.co.uk.

With more businessmen entering into the Premier League to take control of clubs for their potential and not for the love of the badge, as previous chairmen had, it is possible that the role of a football manager will change and he will need to be more prudent in future. It is a lesson that may be of use for all budding managers out there, regardless of their field of business.

According to new research, a growing number of people looking for graduate jobs are leaving the Yorkshire and Humber region as part of their ongoing job search.

This is a cause for concern for officials who are keen to strengthen the region’s knowledge economy by holding on to graduates who study at any of the several universities in the area.

A knowledge economy refers to sectors where at least 25 per cent of staff are educated to degree level and 30 per cent hold professional, managerial, scientific or technological posts.

Apparently Leeds has the largest knowledge economy in the region with more graduates carrying out a job search within Yorkshire and Humber after completing their studies.

The report commissioned by local graduate recruitment organisation Graduates Yorkshire found that Leeds is closely followed by Sheffield and Rotherham. Cities failing to benefit from graduate economy boosts are Bradford, York and Doncaster.

Chief executive of Graduates Yorkshire Martin Edmondson, said: “Our economy is one in transition, moving towards becoming a graduate intensive knowledge economy.

“We see graduates playing a central role in this transition, providing employers with a huge resource just waiting to be tapped and promising a high value return.”

Economist professor Mark Hepworth carried out the research and said that success will be a “two-way street” from now on, with universities encouraged to equip students with the skills needed to meet the demands of local firms and local businesses encouraged to develop roles which will appeal to graduates.

Famous Yorkshire exports include legendary chat show presenter Michael Parkinson who was born in the South Yorkshire town of Barnsley.

Before his TV career took-off, the future broadcaster worked as a reporter on the Manchester Guardian then up sticks to London to write for the Daily Express. His previous job history also includes a stint in the army where a young Parky served as a captain during the Suez Canal Operation.

Other Yorkshire folk who left the county behind to pursue the bright lights of London include Jeremy Clarkson who was born in Doncaster.

Despite being a popular face on TV thanks to Top Gear, the self-proclaimed grumpy old man started out his career as a travelling salesman for his parents’ teddy bear business.

After working in the family business, Clarkson switched jobs entirely and ended up training as a journalist at local newspaper the Rotherham Advertiser, before going on to host the BBC’s motoring programme.

The world of building and construction has long been considered a men-only domain, with many female jobseekers not even considering looking for jobs in the industry.

But all of that looks set to change with the announcement of a new government initiative designed to make construction a more female-friendly job sector.

Education secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to see many more women entering the world of construction, particularly in the huge construction projects under way in preparation for the 2012 Olympic Games in London.

The government says that it plans to spend 20 million on training women construction workers in time for the Olympics, as well as launching a high-profile advertising campaign aimed at making a career in construction more appealing for women who are starting out in employment.

In announcing the new initiative Mr Johnson said that the Olympic Games was a perfect occasion in which to promote women’s potential in the construction industry.

“There is no reason at all why women’s involvement in the games should be restricted to watching, participating and achieving in the stadium,” he said.

“They should be involved in designing and building as well.”

Watching any popular TV show which takes place in or around a place of work and you’d be forgiven for thinking that today’s offices are staffed by part-time models who are given the boot as soon as they turn the wring side of 35.

Either that or they are dull, depressing places where anyone over the age of 40 has no role other than to annoy his significantly younger colleagues about how the way things used to be or harass the young female receptionists.

Life, however, rarely imitates art and, in this instance, so much the better.

After years of education surrounded by people of our own age who have seen the same things and had pretty much the same experiences, the world of work offers us all the perfect chance to mix it up a bit age-wise.

After all, outside of the workplace, where else would you get to chat with someone who remembers what it was like when England last won the World Cup or who travelled around the world at a time when it wasn’t all so homogenised and full of gap-year teenagers.

As an added bonus, it’s often possible to learn in a professional context too, giving us access to career advice from those who have been there and done it several times over.

Indeed, new research shows that, while we may like to socialise pretty strictly within our own age groups, when it come to our jobs, a genuine mix is seen by many as the best way to go.

Almost two-thirds of the younger workers questioned in a recent study carried out by the Jobcentre said that they admired their more senior colleagues’ reliability, with 63 per cent praising their sense of understanding.

In addition, two-fifth of the older workers said that their younger colleagues taught them skills they did not previously possess, despite expressing reservations about their reliability.

“The research shows that having the right balance of age and skills can bring numerous benefits to establishing a complete workforce for both employers and employees,” said Jobcentre plus chief executive Lesley Strathie.

“Both older and younger workers appreciate and learn from the qualities each brings to the workplace.”

Basically, it’s often a straight swap; the youngsters teach the oldies how to use their computers while learning about the benefits of a hard work ethic along the way, life and job skills which can be valuable in the long-term and effectively taken outside of the work place.

So, embrace the diversity. Sure, have a dig at the old men about their lack of memory or hair and take their jibes back in good humour, it’s all ultimately rewarding and, if not, then once five o’clock comes round, you can just cling onto your youth until the next morning.

By Patrick Hind

Looking for a new job? search hundreds on our Job Search!

Gone are the days when you could simply light up a cigarette at your desk, roll up your sleeves, and get on with a bit of hard work. Now, in the enlightened age of health awareness, smoking is no longer regarded as acceptable in the workplace – and rightly so too. I’m too young to remember what it was like to have an office full of smokers, but I can’t imagine it would be a pleasant environment in which to work. There are the obvious health concerns associated with passive smoking for a start, not to mention the smell and pub-like atmosphere.

Of course, there are still plenty of people who would like it if the law allowed them to smoke at their desks again. In truth, the disregard for their own health extends to that of others. Without going to far into the psychology of it, smokers don’t genuinely believe that they are harming their health by smoking – if they did, they wouldn’t do it – and by extension they don’t believe that passive smoking hurts other people.

But despite their complaints, smokers have been well and truly ostracised from the office environment. Smoking at work now involves either braving the hellish pit that is the smoking room, or subjecting yourself to the elements on the fire escape/balcony/window ledge of your choice, in the form of a new facet of the office experience – the smoking break.

Smoking breaks might be seen as a punishment by both the smoker and his or her anti-smoking colleagues. They are a way of turning smoking into an antisocial thing, not appropriate for polite office society – something to be ashamed of. In fact, smoking breaks have become a social event in themselves, and I know lots of smokers who relish the opportunity to take ten minutes’ break and get a metaphorical ‘breath of fresh air’. And when it turns to summer, the opportunity to leave the sweltering office for a bit is all the more welcome.

The problem, however, is that this appears to have bred a sense of distrust and resentment in offices up and down the country. According to some new research, non-smokers are increasingly beginning to view their smoking co-workers as work-shy skivers who are getting out of up to an hour’s work every day because they spend the time smoking.

If you think about it – it’s a reasonable argument. The idea that it is some god given right for a smoker to disappear five or six times a day, just because they happen to be addicted to nicotine, is a bit ridiculous. I like a drink personally, but nipping off for a shot of whisky every hour or so would never be regarded as acceptable.

So maybe the end of the cigarette break is nigh, too. The workplace in its entirety will be yet another place where smokers are made unwelcome – another nail in the coffin of a deathly habit.

Most people in permanent positions are safe in the knowledge that their working rights are protected if not my domestic law, then by legislation at EU level.

Even though job security has not been the best of late, with a spate of job cuts in many of the country’s major industries and job strikes across key industry sectors, there is still a certain level of comfort that workers can enjoy.

But spare a moment if you will, for those whose simply do not have a good level of job security and work on a contract basis, practically not knowing where their next pay check will come from or even if they will be in employment at all in six months’ time.

For these unfortunate souls who lack the security of those in comfortable high paying London jobs, having laws that guarantee them certain basic employment rights is a much welcomed lifeline.

You could virtually hear the collective cheer from the nation’s contract, agency and temporary workers when it was announced today, that European employment ministers are meeting in Brussels for a key discussion that could extend new employment rights to all temps and people who work through agencies.

The Agency Workers Directive has been quite a long time coming – it was first proposed back in 2002. If adopted, the directive would put a stop to employers who give their temporary staff less pay, holidays and pensions than those who are employed on a permanent basis.

It is estimated that this new law would benefit 8 million of such employees who work in countries throughout the EU.

For some reason, the UK government has been opposed to the directive, arguing that if implemented, it will hit jobs and damage the country’s flexible labour market.

There is some logic to this stance, but the bottom line is that people who work on a contract basis deserve to have equal rights with those who are permament employees. They work just as hard and contribute to the economy and as such, should enjoy equal benefits.

Britain and Germany are among the countries opposed to the directive, but millions of contract workers are hoping that they are outvoted when employment ministers meet to discuss the issue today – which is entirely possible although it is said that the vote is “on a knife edge”.

A source in the Belgian capital told the Press Association that the UK government was rather sneakily offering deals to other countries if they supported its stance against an agency workers directive.

Some business groups in the UK have supported the government’s corner and voiced their misgivings that such a change in the law could be bad for business and put up to a quarter of a million jobs at risk.

John Cridland, deputy director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said: “Hundreds of thousands of people in the UK choose to work on temporary placements and value the flexibility it gives them, whilst the economy benefits from firms’ ability to meet extra demand at busy times.”

Hopefully, the outcome of this meeting will give agency workers the rights that are due to them whilst not jeopardising the jobs of the UK’s permanent workers, so both camps are happy.