Posted on 04/16/2013 7:05:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There's a real stigma associated with people who have been out of work for more than six months or those who are prone to job hopping.
To find out how hiring managers view these candidates, economist Rand Ghayad conducted an experiment where he sent out 4,800 fictitious résumés for 600 job openings.
Ghayad found that managers would rather hire people with no relevant job experience than someone who's been unemployed for a long time or has had several jobs in a short period of time.
The resumes sent out described candidates looking work for different reasons across several industries, but all were all male, had racially ambiguous names and similar education backgrounds.
Below is a chart from the paper illustrating how little it matters if you have experience in the industry you're applying for because "the first thing employers look at is how long you've been out of work, and that's the only thing they look at if it's been six months or longer," writes Matthew O'Brien at The Atlantic.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Like most “stigmas,” there’s a legit reason for it in general - while of course there are exceptions. I didn’t see the article mention anything about the culpability of the long term unemployed person in this whole equation.
they actually should be hired first
RE: I didn’t see the article mention anything about the culpability of the long term unemployed person in this whole equation.
What does “culpability” mean?
The dirtbags are building their case to push for an expansion of H1B because it is cheaper. It’s the reason why most of these companies and their hiring managers are not very active in anything that will spur job creation. It’s in their best interest (not the country’s) to be able to say that they cannot find willing and qualified employees.
Fault, blame, responsibility - normally used in situations where all of these are shared.
Let me guess: you’ve never owned or run a business.
There must be a sense of urgency when you lose your job. Some people (I find this hard to believe) actually like being laid off and collecting unemployment benefits for awhile. Time off for good behavior seems to be their attitude. These are the ones who are losing out in this new evironment. I have held job since I was thirteen years old. I cannot fathom unemployment for any length of time at all. Yes I have a lost a few jobs along the way...but I had part time work...to help me get through until I found a full time job. When I was in between full time jobs, I had a HUGE sense of urgency....Getting up early every morning, putting on a suit and tie and pounding the pavement. Even if I had no interviews scheduled on a particular day, I pounded the pavement anyways....knocking on doors, filling out applications, walking into job placement agencies, I left no stone unturned. This must be the mindset for everyone who values work and having a job. A job is a precious commodity in this pathetic anti-business evironment of obamanation.
The only way to combat long term unemployment is to at least work on some sort of degree. That is at least an excuse to use when asked why you haven’t worked. Of course it will cost money to go to school, but it might be worthwhile in getting a job and you can stop going to school once you are hired.
That’s exactly the truth - businesses have no agenda but to hire the best person for the job in most cases - simply because survival is too difficult to factor in any other issue. While there are exceptions to every rule, in general, someone who was willing to do some kind of stinky part time work is a much better candidate for a good job than someone who laid out for six months. That’s just common sense and human nature.
Anyone who will be honest with themselves will acknowledge this. Hiring managers and business owners already have.
That is a very good question. The assumption seems to be that the long term unemployed are all lazy and don’t really want or feel that they need a job. I’ve known a lot of people who are in that category and they will take any job including some who haul garbage, work day labor, sling french fries and try their best to land even an entry level job. Not hiring qualified unemployed only plays in the our socialist dictator’s plans to force as many as possible onto the welfare rolls. Where else will they go? Are they going to starve and let their families starve? Too many on these forums will say that the unemployed today are too lazy to go out and find a job when the truth is there are many less jobs today than six years ago and hiring managers generally won’t hire or consider even qualified applicants because they are long term unemployed. When we reach a certain level of unemployment then there won’t be enough consumers who can afford to pay for the goods and services that these companies and their hiring managers provide which puts many of them out of employment.
Taking a part time job or attempting to start your own business would be better, but going back to school would also reflect much better than laying out for sure.
I agree with the part-time job and starting a business too. I think anything that looks like you are doing something helps!
No, that is NOT the assumption. In fact, there is no assumption per se, but simply the REALIZATION that MOST (not all) people who lay out chronically are lazier than those who found something to do, regardless of how undesirable. There is also the realization that six months to a year off - even for good people - damages their ability to kick it back into gear. Yes, there are exceptions, but this is a "law of large numbers" universe and anecdotal evidence is irrelevant - interesting perhaps, but not significant.
Being in the software industry working in NYC (but not anymore), I can tell you that there are many COMPETENT people who have been laid off because of many other reasons between late 2007 and 2009.
Some of them:
1) Financial firms want to move data centers to less expensive states and tell employees that they need to be prepared to move or else... ( and many don’t want to uproot themselves, so they take a package instead ). Nothing to do with their performance.
2) Financial firms embarked on an ill-advised project and find out that the market and general economic conditions have changed and there is no need for the project any longer. Continuing will only cause more money to be poured down the drain . result : Mass layoffs ( the good get thrown out with the bad and the ugly ).
Just two I have observed off the top of my head. Age discrimination is also rampant but I’d rather not get into it because the counter-argument would be -— you could be the victim of the Peter Principle.
And yes, there is also the separating of the wheat and the chaff, but we can’t ignore all the above that I mentioned.
No doubt. There is a strange inertia dynamic in human beings, and six months off or longer seems to just ruin it. Anything is better than nothing....
The article points out no statistical difference has been found in performance or longevity in the job once hired.
The economy of the last few years has put a lot of very qualified people out of full time jobs with companies. Unfortunately the HR departments exercising such bias has exacerbated the problem. Add to this the unfortunate situation of being a white male over 50 and your doomed - so just have to find a way to be self employed. And that is not an easy proposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.