Unemployed Need Not Apply

[southsideirish71]

so much for being "job creators"

 

Employed people historically are more attractive to potential hiring managers over the unemployed. In the IT industry how long do you think you can sit on the sidelines, whether it's your fault or not, and have value compared to another candidate who is employed and is working with the tech now. So the only way you flip this is if you make it worth it for the company. They need some sort of incentives or this will continue.

Edited September 29, 2011 by southsideirish71

[StrangeSox]

but the point that they're not really creating any jobs if they're refusing to hire the unemployed but are instead "job shufflers" taking advantage of a depressed labor market still stands.

[Soxfest]

Between this and age discrimination I feel for anyone looking for a job in this economy.

[mr_genius]

Not to mention probably cheaper to hire.

 

definitely.

[mr_genius]

I just assumed that employers considered the unemployed as the bottom of the barrel.

 

they do

[mr_genius]

That number seems too unrealistic. It's all round numbers these days.

 

^^^

 

 

[Texsox]

BTW, for our last teacher opening we had over 300 applicants. The applicants that received an interview had to work their butts off to get noticed.

[Texsox]

but the point that they're not really creating any jobs if they're refusing to hire the unemployed but are instead "job shufflers" taking advantage of a depressed labor market still stands.

 

It creates an opening and when the merry go round stops, someone new has to get on. It's just not at the largest firms. It may be with a start up, or a smaller firm.

[Y2HH]

Because you aren't getting the best candidates.

 

Some companies really don't care about that too much. I personally think that choosing the right people from the outset is something that most companies don't invest enough in.

 

I'm not attempting to play devils advocate here, either...just putting this into a real world perspective.

 

The problem right now comes from the sheer number of people looking for jobs, including those that currently have jobs. In the case of those that are already employed, many accepted jobs that pay less than they're worth or were initially seeking (employers market), but took the job anyway so they'd have some sort of income. Many of those people continue looking for a better opportunity, which keeps the number of people seeking employment very high. Again, this keeps the market in favor of the employers, which is somewhat of a negative snowball effect.

 

Now, keeping that in mind, as a person that's had to interview people in the past (and still does from time to time), I know what a daunting, expensive and time consuming task it can be when you're absolutely bombarded with potential candidates.

 

And herein lies the problem.

 

In many cases, I don't want to go through 500 resumes (or more), so if I can quickly/easily cut that number by only looking for currently employed candidates, it might be something I'd consider. For the record, I'm not saying I've done this, but I'll also go on record in saying that it's something I'd consider DESPITE knowing it may potentially cut some of the best candidates.

 

Why?

 

Because the rent...is too damn...

 

Seriously though, it's because there isn't enough time, and the interviewing process consumes a lot of time from many different people, which in turn makes the process insanely expensive. This is a problem a lot of companies are running into right now. While it would be awesome if we could slow down time and run through thousands of candidates while ignoring the cost, it's simply not reality.

 

Sometimes, great people fall through the cracks in times like this, because as I said, when 5000 resumes hit my desk because of the sheer number of people looking for jobs, the unfortunate reality is 90% of them aren't going to get a fair look.

 

So yes, while it cuts down on the talent pool, it's considered acceptable risk to keep things in order, on time and possible. Not to mention, I'll find a great candidate anyway, only in 1/10th the time and at an acceptable cost in time consumed by the many people they'd have to interview with, etc.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Y2HH

[Iwritecode]

The problem right now comes from the sheer number of people looking for jobs, including those that currently have jobs. In the case of those that are already employed, many accepted jobs that pay less than they're worth or were initially seeking (employers market), but took the job anyway so they'd have some sort of income. Many of those people continue looking for a better opportunity, which keeps the number of people seeking employment very high. Again, this keeps the market in favor of the employers, which is somewhat of a negative snowball effect.

 

I think this may be part of it too. I can almost guarantee that I was turned down for some openings when I was unemployed because they knew I was going to leave the second I found a better opportunity.

 

I was basically applying anywhere and everywhere. Even when I knew I was way over-qualified for the job.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not attempting to play devils advocate here, either...just putting this into a real world perspective.

 

The problem right now comes from the sheer number of people looking for jobs, including those that currently have jobs. In the case of those that are already employed, many accepted jobs that pay less than they're worth or were initially seeking (employers market), but took the job anyway so they'd have some sort of income. Many of those people continue looking for a better opportunity, which keeps the number of people seeking employment very high. Again, this keeps the market in favor of the employers, which is somewhat of a negative snowball effect.

 

Now, keeping that in mind, as a person that's had to interview people in the past (and still does from time to time), I know what a daunting, expensive and time consuming task it can be when you're absolutely bombarded with potential candidates.

 

And herein lies the problem.

 

In many cases, I don't want to go through 500 resumes (or more), so if I can quickly/easily cut that number by only looking for currently employed candidates, it might be something I'd consider. For the record, I'm not saying I've done this, but I'll also go on record in saying that it's something I'd consider DESPITE knowing it may potentially cut some of the best candidates.

 

Why?

 

Because the rent...is too damn...

 

Seriously though, it's because there isn't enough time, and the interviewing process consumes a lot of time from many different people, which in turn makes the process insanely expensive. This is a problem a lot of companies are running into right now. While it would be awesome if we could slow down time and run through thousands of candidates while ignoring the cost, it's simply not reality.

 

Sometimes, great people fall through the cracks in times like this, because as I said, when 5000 resumes hit my desk because of the sheer number of people looking for jobs, the unfortunate reality is 90% of them aren't going to get a fair look.

 

So yes, while it cuts down on the talent pool, it's considered acceptable risk to keep things in order, on time and possible. Not to mention, I'll find a great candidate anyway, only in 1/10th the time and at an acceptable cost in time consumed by the many people they'd have to interview with, etc.

 

This makes sense, I agree that is largely what is happening. But then, I also think that companies, in general, don't invest enough in their recruiting procedures. I think that money pays for itself, when your screening processes are better and you get better employees. Just my view after spending quite a long time in business, managing people, recruiting, hiring and firing.

 

 

[The Sir]

The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk

 

 

 

This seems like a pretty terrible trend. I'd imagine there would have to be some way to incentivize businesses away from these sorts of policies.

 

Businesses are free to do it. Just seems like a moronic policy.

[Texsox]

NSS, from a practical point of view, it is impossible to interview ever qualified applicant. So you start to apply filters to narrow down the list. Whatever filter you use will potentially cause you to overlook the very best candidate. So which filters should be employed first? The unqualified are tossed aside. Then here is the first cut I used, local versus out of the area. Unemployed applicants from out of say a 100 mile area, went in the bottom stack. Employed applicants without specific industry experience were placed on top of them. The top of the stack were applicants from my biggest competitors with three years of experience or less and one promotion in that time. Why? Because that formula worked for me on numerous occasions. In fifteen years I never fired someone who fit that profile. I was 100% happy with each hire. Some left on their own accord, but were considered solid employees while working with me.

 

Any one of those filters may have caused me to overlook someone, but you have to trust your gut and history.

[NorthSideSox72]

NSS, from a practical point of view, it is impossible to interview ever qualified applicant. So you start to apply filters to narrow down the list. Whatever filter you use will potentially cause you to overlook the very best candidate. So which filters should be employed first? The unqualified are tossed aside. Then here is the first cut I used, local versus out of the area. Unemployed applicants from out of say a 100 mile area, went in the bottom stack. Employed applicants without specific industry experience were placed on top of them. The top of the stack were applicants from my biggest competitors with three years of experience or less and one promotion in that time. Why? Because that formula worked for me on numerous occasions. In fifteen years I never fired someone who fit that profile. I was 100% happy with each hire. Some left on their own accord, but were considered solid employees while working with me.

 

Any one of those filters may have caused me to overlook someone, but you have to trust your gut and history.

Of course. But at least start with job-related qualifications, and see where that gets you. I've been in a position of hiring and firing people for a lot of my career, and I've seen a LOT of resumes. For every job I've ever seen, most applicants lack fundamental things, and your pool decreases dramatically if you use those qualifications. Though I admit, that may not be true of every job in every sector.

 

But in the sectors where a zillion people are qualified, you then look to the intangibles - like hunger and drive. Furthermore, you want cheap. Both, IMO, point TO the unemployed, not away from them.

 

[mr_genius]

Furthermore, you want cheap. Both, IMO, point TO the unemployed, not away from them.

 

yea, but if you want cheap, going offshore or with guest workers will cost so much less. being cheap with a US salary isn't really cheap globally.

[southsider2k5]

The funny part is that as long as the government is doing the hiring, it doesn't matter what laws get passed.

[Texsox]

Of course. But at least start with job-related qualifications, and see where that gets you. I've been in a position of hiring and firing people for a lot of my career, and I've seen a LOT of resumes. For every job I've ever seen, most applicants lack fundamental things, and your pool decreases dramatically if you use those qualifications. Though I admit, that may not be true of every job in every sector.

 

But in the sectors where a zillion people are qualified, you then look to the intangibles - like hunger and drive. Furthermore, you want cheap. Both, IMO, point TO the unemployed, not away from them.

 

I believe the point now is because of the higher unemployment rates the past couple years after completing that step they now have too many applications to consider and the next divisor is current employment status.

[EvilMonkey]

I think this may be part of it too. I can almost guarantee that I was turned down for some openings when I was unemployed because they knew I was going to leave the second I found a better opportunity.

 

I was basically applying anywhere and everywhere. Even when I knew I was way over-qualified for the job.

I KNOW it was a part when I was looking. When I finally got the interview to run the print center at Office Max, he outright told me he was afraid I would bolt in a second. I promised him that I would not leave for at least 6 months to finally get the job. And almost 6 months to the day, my current job found ME from a resume I had sent out just before landing the Omax job. I gave Omax a chance to match, but considering that I get the use of a company car, they weren't likely to do that.

[NorthSideSox72]

yea, but if you want cheap, going offshore or with guest workers will cost so much less. being cheap with a US salary isn't really cheap globally.

But not as much cheaper as before. The growing trend is a deceleration of the offshore hiring (not that the number is going down - but that the rate is decreasing), and now they are looking at South-sourcing and what not. The pay gap with places like India and China is declining pretty quickly, and with the added overhead of overseas management and the inherent quality and communication problems that often occur, the trend is slowing down.

 

[EvilMonkey]

But not as much cheaper as before. The growing trend is a deceleration of the offshore hiring (not that the number is going down - but that the rate is decreasing), and now they are looking at South-sourcing and what not. The pay gap with places like India and China is declining pretty quickly, and with the added overhead of overseas management and the inherent quality and communication problems that often occur, the trend is slowing down.

That, and the fact that while the shareholders may appreciate dividends, the consumers really don't like talking to someone named 'Mitch' or 'Barbara' that has an Indian accent so thick you can't understand them.

[NorthSideSox72]

That, and the fact that while the shareholders may appreciate dividends, the consumers really don't like talking to someone named 'Mitch' or 'Barbara' that has an Indian accent so thick you can't understand them.

That's why I brought up "communications", which is both with customers and internal to the company.

 

[mr_genius]

But not as much cheaper as before. The growing trend is a deceleration of the offshore hiring (not that the number is going down - but that the rate is decreasing), and now they are looking at South-sourcing and what not. The pay gap with places like India and China is declining pretty quickly, and with the added overhead of overseas management and the inherent quality and communication problems that often occur, the trend is slowing down.

 

Well, I don't necessarily see that, I see more clients wanting a blend of offshore on shore (clients that only wanted onshore before). They want at least 50% of the work done very very cheap. They also want a lot more types of work done offshore, not just QA or programming. Also, I can get L1 visa holders for 7k a year AND have them work in the US. You can't beat that price. It will take decades to close income gaps with China and India.

[Balta1701]

Well, I don't necessarily see that, I see more clients wanting a blend of offshore on shore (clients that only wanted onshore before). They want at least 50% of the work done very very cheap. They also want a lot more types of work done offshore, not just QA or programming. Also, I can get L1 visa holders for 7k a year AND have them work in the US. You can't beat that price. It will take decades to close income gaps with China and India.

Having the Chinese currency able to correct would at least put a dent in this issue.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, I don't necessarily see that, I see more clients wanting a blend of offshore on shore (clients that only wanted onshore before). They want at least 50% of the work done very very cheap. They also want a lot more types of work done offshore, not just QA or programming. Also, I can get L1 visa holders for 7k a year AND have them work in the US. You can't beat that price. It will take decades to close income gaps with China and India.

To be clear, when I said closing, I meant narrowing - not that the income gap on these jobs will actually close to zero. That won't happen in our lifetimes.

 

But Balta is also right, having the Yuan unpegged would help this a bit when it comes to China.

 

[southsider2k5]

To be clear, when I said closing, I meant narrowing - not that the income gap on these jobs will actually close to zero. That won't happen in our lifetimes.

 

But Balta is also right, having the Yuan unpegged would help this a bit when it comes to China.

 

They will never truly unpeg it as long as they have the currency reserves generated by American's buying their cheaper stuff. It would completely destroy their wage and cost advantages.