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 ...
I hear it all the time in my line of work, “Yep I got laid off in 2011 and wanted to take some time off before I looked for another job.” Or the more honest that tell me, “I didn’t start looking for work until my unemployment ran out.”
The lazy know how to game the system. They do the bare ‘job search minimum’ so they can keep the bennies rolling in. Or they’ll work for 10 weeks to become eligible for UI, then quit and head right to the OET to fill out a claim.
If ive seen it once ive seen it a hundred times.
All of what you say is true, but it’s anecdotal, and you are simply not going to understand the law of large numbers if you stay buried in anecdotal evidence. There are also different dynamics for different industries, and perhaps in the software industry, one where working in mom’s basement might lead to billionaire status, the “rule of thumb” is not quite as pure as it is in most other industries.
The fact remains, this survey is totally in sync with what we all know about human nature, and to try and believe otherwise because we are, or are related to, or know, some of the exceptions is simply a dead end realm.
And I’m calling BS on that stat, and pointing out that the article was written with an obvious agenda. I challenge you to find a single biz owner or manager (tiny companies notwithstanding) who will agree with those findings.
precisely.
And Joe Biden’s cousin just got offered a job, proving the recession is over......./s
Why should that make a difference when I am hiring. Most business are not charities.
But most of the time, they come late, leave early and are the first to tattle to your boss if you come late (even if you are also leaving late that day) or leave early (even if you also came in early) that day.
They have the luxury of simply trash canning resumes which came in without meeting certain superficial criteria such as the right buzz-words for getting past software screening, too much or even too little job changing. Then there is the assumption that all of the long term unemployed are simply unemployable, just because many of them are. They've taken unemployment as long as they possibly can simply because Obongo's minions have made it an attractive alternative and their skill set has gone rusty. But in the same subset are highly motivated and skilled older workers who simply get passed over because of age, though excuses like "overqualified" do more to protect them from possible age discrimination actions than stating the real reason.
HR people are no longer skilled at locating these diamonds because their entire focus is now in following procedures, being politically correct and avoiding lawsuits.
I retired from the military after 25 years. After a few years of being retired, I want to work again. I’ve gone back to school because my military experience wasn’t relevant to most businesses.
I’ll be curious to see if employers refuse to hire me, either because I’ve been “unemployed” for a few years, or because I have retirement pay coming in and thus might not be as “hungry” as some.
The reality is I’d be a damn good worker. Four years of retirement has made me ready to go back and work for 10-15 years...but will anyone even look at me?
You don’t have to have owned a business to understand the economics and the problems the government puts on them. You also don’t know what I’ve done throughout my life so don’t make assumptions. Do you think that employees today don’t understand those problems? Most work very hard to make sure that their employers are successful and are willing to make sacrifices to keep everything running and to stay employed. Too many employers I’ve seen these days take advantage of their employees and treat them like slaves because they know the employees don’t have much choice. We’re not talking about a situation of not being able to afford to hire or expand; those employers aren’t advertising for employees. We’re talking about employers who will not hire qualified long term unemployed but will hire someone less qualified who is already employed somewhere else. It’s those who are hiring, just not hiring qualified people who have spent a long time working part time and/or looking for ANY job to stay afloat.
RE: All of what you say is true, but it’s anecdotal, and you are simply not going to understand the law of large numbers if you stay buried in anecdotal evidence.
OK, what does the law of large numbers tell us? Can you show me such studies using large numbers?
After an entire working career with never an interruption in jobs/job offers the entire job environment was completely changed thanks in part to GWB and to a much greater extent by this genetically inferior sub-human in the White Hut.
Yes, it may be blowing my own horn, but I was almost able to throw out my resume on the floor and there would be multiple jobs offer the same day until the central planners gained control.
After the last company went into bankruptcy, there was 3 months of job searches without a single reply to my resume. That had NEVER happened in the past.
It became obvious that a skilled employee, with executive experience, was not needed in a central planner’s world and the job market dried up for my type of work ethic, experience and achievement.
Fortunately, I planned for a good retirement and took it.
Now, however, my own government spends its every waking moment developing plans to extract every penny saved for retirement via taxes, regulations, and the biggest money grab of all, CommieCare.
Not only are they actively working to redistribute my life long earnings to their types, but simultaneously they are cutting off as many of my Constitutional rights to limit my ability to fight them.
It is no coincidence that all these changes are taking place at the same time. Fedzilla must eliminate constitutional protections in order to gain full control.
We are witnessing the end of this country as we know it.
Actually, you do. Now I'm sure that a lot of folks who never have run or owned one would agree with you, but I'm also quite sure that 100% of those who HAVE run or owned a business...would totally disagree with you. (in context, a business large enough to have hired and fired employees over a period of time).
THINK ABOUT THIS: those of us who HAVE run or owned a biz - one lived in the ignorance of not having done it - and we ALL know that there is absolutely no way to understand this til you've done it. Until you have run one, you cannot possibly compare the understanding of owning one versus the ignorance of not owning one. Logic. By definition, intrinsically and inherently so.
Tis obvious we need a law bacon it agin the law to hearer anyone that dasn’t been outta der job for at least six months.... ;-)
You are also making the assumption that most of these people take a “vacation” on unemployment and then are not too keen on really trying to find work. The layabouts ARE the exception but hiring policies like those discussed here are going to create an air of despair that will move long term unemployed to give up. I don’t know anyone who has taken months, years or even days to “gear up”. Everyone I’ve come in contact with are out there every day looking and applying. They take whatever part time jobs they can find and work hard to stay up to date in their fields. According to the article, these efforts don’t make any difference to most hiring managers so why should they bother further.
The burden of proof is on you here actually - because the first law of large numbers shown was that hiring managers apparently believe this. The second thing you ignore is an honest assessment of human nature. The third thing you do is assign a cockamamie motive for these folks hiring who they hire, somehow thinking that business is so easy these days that some kind of perverted agenda can be adhered to in hiring policy.
There are folks in this thread who insist that you are laid off BECAUSE you DESERVE to be and that accounts for MOST OF THE REASONS.
Just read some posts on this thread and you’ll understand what I mean.
I’m not making any assumptions - but again, you will never find someone who has had to hire, fire, lay off employees who will agree with you or disagree with me. Well all know what is generally true, and we all know there are exceptions. But exceptions prove the rule, because they stand out.
But proceed to indulge in your fantasies.
RE: The third thing you do is assign a cockamamie motive for these folks hiring who they hire, somehow thinking that business is so easy these days that some kind of perverted agenda can be adhered to in hiring policy.
OK, I agree with you — BUSINESS IS *NOT* EASY THESE DAYS. See Post #31 for instance.
My main question is the assumption that those who are laid off are MOSTLY because they are under-performing or incompetent.
I really need statistical proof of that. I don’t think the burden of proof is on my part.
No, that’s not true at all. There is a realization that when looking at a pool of applicants who all lost their original job say 12 months ago, that those who figured out how to do something in the interim are more likely to be productive workers than those who didn’t. No assumption. Nothing to do with the original lay off at all. Simply a human nature fact about how people handled the adversity of losing their job.
LET ME REPEAT SLOWLY. The assumption is NOT an assumption....it is a recognition of fact. Second, it has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, zip zero nada, nothing, nothing, to do with original lay off.
It is ALL, as in ALL, as in 100%, about how the person reacted to the adversity of losing that first job. Period. You are trying to assign personal and anecodatal evidences into an impersonal big picture.
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.