The employment market, at present, finds itself in a ghastly position. From copiously modified curricula vitae to wild heaps of job specification criteria, the ability to employ is being drowned by this torrent in pusillanimous bureaucracy. This is characteristic not only of England, nor Christendom, but the entire global employment market in developed states. The question to ask is: for what purpose? Superficially, it would be safe to assume to find the best candidate. But what is a good candidate? We shall answer these questions in the course of our discourse.
This is a radical problem as it concerns not only the happiness of the individual, but also the wealth of our kingdom.
In short, the chief problem of employment at present is it assumes actuality and potentiality to be one and the same. That to be competent, you must be working simultaneously, that you must have experience in the profession or a certain qualification. What Megarian sophistry! For, as with all work and leisure, the limit lies in each individual’s will power. Let us begin by addressing the first folly.
The first problem in employment is assuming working per se to equate to capacity to work. This is the same to say a builder is only ever a builder when he is building: say a house; or a politician is only a politician when physically he sits in the House of Commons. This assumes actuality and potentiality to be the same, and so it would be false to imagine when a builder is resting, he is no more a builder; or when a politician is on holiday, he is no more a politician. This assumption has stood an obstacle to many seeking work with the skills necessary to complete their particular work, and in so doing, dragged misery onto the individual and our political economy.
The second problem in employment is assuming previous experience to equate to present competence. That is to say, if a man was a builder in the past, he has the capacity to build in the present; or if a politician sat on a borough council, he now has the capacity to be a Member of Parliament. From a certain light, this is true. Assuming the builder, or politician, is competent in their past experience — rather than a former incompetent builder or politician — then in the present, when he actualises his potential, then he may be said to have capacity in building or governing and be a competent builder or politician. However, simply working as a builder or politician is no guarantee of future capacity. In the same way an apple tree has been an apple tree does not mean it will yield good fruit. And so former employment in an identical, or similar trade, is no guarantee of present or future capacity.
The third problem in employment is assuming a qualification is a mark of capacity for work. That is, to be a builder, a builder require a certificate; or to be a politician, a politician requires a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. This is, perhaps, the greatest problem of modern employment. Nigh everywhere, on every application form, there is dependence on the applicant to have a qualification; with questions of the like of ‘What degree do you have?’, ‘What were your A Level subjects?’ or ‘How many GCSEs do you have?’. And yet, the answers to these questions say nothing of a builder’s or politician’s competence to be a builder or politician. In thought, perhaps this is so. Yet in being, this depends on the actualisation of a builder building a house, or a politician keeping the peace and defending the realm. This reliance on qualification ignores the natural skills found amongst men, or the self tuition they teach themselves, which puts them in positions better suited to building or governing. In the parable, this problem is choosing the man with the toga and ring over the competent man. When it comes to building a house, it is the skilled builder, rather than the qualified builder, who will build the better house, and the skilled politician, rather than the qualified politician, who will better govern the realm. Therefore, qualification fails to guarantee the capacity of an individual to do his work.
To assume, unless a combination of being is seen from a certain light, is to lie. Only the actualisation of potentiality will prove the capacity of builders to build and politicians to govern. It is clear assuming actuality is potentiality is a violent folly which undermines individual happiness and national prosperity. It is by meeting candidates in the flesh and applying them to work that an employer will see the true capacity of the employee. This has been the means by which earlier kings chose their governments and earlier builders chose their workmen. It is by following this example that a truthful and successful employment system comes about. It is by sticking the mind to ideological fancy that prosperity and happiness crumbles.