You'll have a better chance just being yourself. /Sarc
Posted on 06/27/2014 11:19:45 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
It happens to most people at some point during their careers: They find themselves applying for jobs they’re overqualified for. There are several reasons this happens -- they may have been out of work for some time, they’re switching fields, or they’re simply interested in trying something new.
[....] To overcome that perception, here are some ways to get hired when you’re overqualified.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Why would anyone want to put such a label on themselves? That is not common sense.
Yep, they want "Good Enough", because they're are cheaper.
In the cover letter say you are transgender and that you noticed they don’t have enough or any transgender employees, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit.
After getting hired, tell them you decided you were actually straight after all.
Have to disagree. Many years ago, I was out of work and looking desperately for anything to put food on the table. A local security firm was advertising for immediate hires, so I filled out an application and was shown to the hiring manager.
She said: "I noticed that you did not put in how much you were paid in your last employment position, or exactly what your job was."
"That's true." I responded.
She then handed the application back and told Me to write the job title and amount down, then re-read it for a moment and handed it back.
"You're too overqualified, and we don't pay near that much".
"I understand that", I replied, "and I am only asking for normal wages consistent with the position being applied for".
"Nope", she replied while shaking her head. "That just means you will be out of here very quickly if we did hire you as soon as a better paying job like you are used to comes along, and we need a long-term hire. You would never be happy with the wages we are offering for this position."
Well, that’s what you could “identify as” on the date of hire, and the HR department could record you as such.
Other days, you could “identify as” anything else you want!
Isn’t liberalism GRAND?
Also HR overspeak for "likely to demand raises or move on"
I thinks it's worse than that... they're offering the same hourly rate for each candidate. That's what is so dumb - I'm not after his job, he pays the same amount regardless of differences in qualifications, and it's enough to keep me happy and not looking for more pay in the next 12 months ($50/hr)...
“After getting hired, tell them you decided you were actually straight after all.”
LOL, that won’t work, you’d be violating the dress code...literally.
Good luck trying to hide your age, degrees, work history. Most of it is available with a quick google search. One suggestion is to say you retired but would like to come back into the workforce at a lower level than when you left. I don’t know if that works.
You bet. Just had one with only 7 weeks on the job leave today. His boss was unreasonable so he found a better gig.
Google doesn’t capture everything, plus, this isn’t hiding anything as no one really goes out to find if a person has more to their history than what is on the resume.
you forgot the (sarc).
You'll have a better chance just being yourself. /Sarc
lol
“How to pretend my company is worth something while LinkedIn kicks our behind”
I didn’t believe it but I do now.
75% of all jobs found use info from LinkedIn.
Years ago a friend of mine found work by listing his PhD in Aerospace Engineering as a hobby.
With over 25 years of experience in corporate finance; including the areas of general accounting, payroll and accounts payable, and in benefits administration and having management experience, I suspect that many of the companies I applied to for job that I was qualified for, were not interested in me because they could get someone with a BA or even an MBA (neither of which I have) for the same salary, even if they didn’t have my breadth of experience or proven accomplishments. Or in the case of the lower level positions I applied for, like say an AP or PR clerk, they saw me as being way overqualified – which I was.
So I did do something that the article recommends against and that was to tailor my resume based on the job. But I didn’t lie about or omit any jobs or any of my actual job titles rather I emphasized my strengths and experience based on what they were looking for. In other words if I was applying for an AP Clerk II job, while didn’t omit the fact that I had payroll and payroll management experience, I put more emphasis on the accounts payable aspects of the jobs I had that encompassed that and what they were looking for.
But you have to be honest. If you put on your resume that you were an AP Clerk at XYZ company and they conditionally offer you the job but then find out during the background check/employment verification that you were actually a Senior Staff Accountant/Payroll Manager at XYZ company, or you tell them you were making 25k a year when you were actually making 50k, your offer is likely to be rescinded, just as it would if you lied about having a degree, and you wouldn’t believe how often that happens. And you have to be aware of any of your personal professional references; if you omit things or greatly sell yourself short and your references tell a different story, even if they are singing your praises, the HR department and the hiring manager are going to question what else you haven’t been honest about and why.
I did finally land a full time job after working at Target for a couple of months (and Target BTW, hired me as a “seasonal” worker, but was so happy with me that they wanted me to stay on, go fulltime and go on the “management” track – and I did have prior retail management experience but that was some 25 years earlier). The full time job I finally landed was, while not entry level (COBRA Administration/Customer Service), it was a big step down in terms of responsibility and opportunities and salary and with a small regional “mom & pop” family owned and run business, not that there is anything wrong with that – but this was the kind of company that if you weren’t related by blood or marriage to the owners or one of the other higher ups, you were very limited and basically treated like crap. But I stuck it out for over two years and was even promoted but in all honesty, I wasn’t happy there and for even more reasons to get into here.
So when I found an opportunity to double my then current salary (but in actuality, get back to what I used to make) at a company much closer to home and with much better benefits and opportunities for professional growth, but more importantly in an area that I really love; Payroll and HR Information Systems management, I took it. And I love my job, the company I work for and the people I work with and the interesting challenges of my job. And I recently got a big promotion and salary increase. I even have done some travel as we are part of a much bigger international company, even to the HQ of our parent company in the UK : ),
In my current job I am part of the HR team as opposed being part of the Finance Department as many of my previous jobs were. So I’m learning much more about the HR side of things and part of my promotion entails “Compensation Administration”, meaning I’m learning how to “slot” and “grade” new and existing positions and will eventually take on the role of salary negotiation.
HR often gets a bad rap, and admittedly sometimes deservedly so in some companies, but they are often stuck between the unrealistic expectations of the hiring managers, the realities of the job market and sadly all too often the dishonesty of job applicants, especially at the mid to higher job levels.
A good example of this was a job we were recently trying to fill for a manufacturing engineer with experience in polymer plastics. The job description and prerequisite qualifications, the education and experience level were written up by the hiring manager and his manager and approved by senior management and HR and the job was slotted for salary by HR based on that job description with comparable industry and regional comps and HR posted the job and sent it out to our recruiters. But when the resumes came in and the interviews took place, they were all rejected. Why? Because none of them had a Ph.D.
Well they way the job description was written, a Ph.D. was not necessary or even “desired” and for where the salary level was slotted and what the hiring department management had budgeted for the position, there was no way they were going to get a Ph.D. to take the job for that amount, live alone want to even do the job given that it would be far below what someone with a Ph.D. would probably want. And if someone with a Ph.D. did accept it, the question would be why; why were they willing to take a lower position in terms of the job and salary and just how long could we expect to keep this person if there wasn’t a fast track for advancement, which there wasn’t. And given that the job as written, offered a relocation package and sign on bonus, if the person stayed the minimum of two years, we would not recoup the hiring costs. Needless to say our HR manager and our recruiters were pi$$ed as it took up a lot of their time and for nothing, not to mention the waste of time of those applicants who met the qualifications for the job and who came in to interview, some more than once, in some cases from out of state at the company’s expense.
My HR manager had to have what I would call a “Come To Jesus” meeting with management and spelled out to them in clear and certain terms that they either had to re-write the job description and be willing to pay more, much more or keep it as it was and accept that they were not going to get a Ph.D. level engineer. It took over six months to finally fill the position when our industry standard to fill a similar position is 45-60 days. Ug!
OTOH, we have been trying to fill a warehouse manager position for many months and two of the candidates we made conditional job offers to didn’t pass their background checks as both of them had lied about having a college degree, a BA and sadly having a BA wasn’t even a prerequisite of the job. If they hadn’t falsified their application, agreeing to have that verified, either of the two would have been hired. The second applicant didn’t list her degree on her resume but she did on her application. And when we couldn’t verify it, she sent us a photocopy that was so obviously doctored – her supposed graduation date on her application didn’t even match the photocopy of what she sent us and based on the result of her background check and DOB, she would have gotten her BA when she was twelve years old.
While I am well aware that some employers will do a “Google” or other such internet searches or use sketchy “free” internet background checks on potential applicants and on applications they receive, but legally they are not supposed to do that and no reputable company operates that way. A “Google” or other internet search is not reliable as one can never be sure if what they find is someone with the same name, living in the same town, being of the same or similar age but a completely different person. You are not legally supposed to be subject to a background check by a prospective employer and denied a job as a result of such a check unless you have signed an authorization for them to do so. But yes, sadly that’s not to say it doesn’t happen.
What should happen; how it works at my present and at most of all my previous employers, is that resumes are received and reviewed by HR and passed on to the hiring manager. Sometimes all the resumes are passed on and sometimes only those that HR and sometimes an outside recruiting firm has pre-screened and determined to be a possible fit are. A lot of them are tossed in the “thanks but no thanks” pile and some are “possible interviews” and a few are “very interested in interviewing”. Depending on the job and the culture of the organization, the typical next step is a telephone interview. That could be with HR alone or with HR and the hiring manager. Only if they pass the initial phone interview are they are called in for an in person, face to face interview, sometimes, depending on the position level, a second or third interview is scheduled although I tend think that anything past a second or third interview is usually overkill.
But only after a candidate is identified as this is “the one we want”, and they are they offered a “conditional” job offer, only at that point are they asked to complete a formal job application and no – “see attached resume” doesn’t cut it. The reason is that the job application has verbiage in it that states the legal requirements that falsification of information on the job application can be a reason for rescinding the offer and the application includes or is accompanied by an authorization to perform a background check, based not on what is on their resume but what they have put on the application which has to be signed and dated by the applicant. A resume is not a legally binding document, (think of it as a bio or “introduction”) where as a signed job application with the proper legal verbiage is.
Only at the point is the prospective employer allowed to ask for things like legal address(es) and former addresses, former employers with employment dates and contact information, former names and aliases (i.e. maiden names) and DOB and SSN, and degrees and or certifications if required, but the DOB and SSN are only used as verification of identity for purposes for the background check (and we only use and can only legally use e-verify on the SSN along with the I-9 document on the first day of employment, not before) – but getting the DOB and SSN hopefully ensures that the background check finds you and not just someone with your same name and we use a reputable national firm to perform these checks for us.
Depending on the company, a background check authorization may also ask the applicant to submit not only to verification of former employment and education, but also to a criminal background and or DMV or a credit check. Where I work we don’t do credit checks and we only do DMV checks for positions that require driving a company vehicle or for outside sales positions where driving a vehicle is an integral part of the job and a hit on a criminal conviction may not necessarily be a barrier to being hired depending on what is was for, the severity of the crime and how long ago it took place. But with that authorization to agree to a background check it also comes with it, certain “consumer protection rights”. And while our background checks don’t include “consumer credit” checks, it still falls under federal “consumer protection rights” laws.
And at my present company, all persons who have been conditionally offered a job must also submit to a basic physical and a drug screening and a separate signed authorization is required for that. We do not drug screen all potential applicants, but only those to whom we have conditionally offered a job to. And that make sense. Why incur the cost and hassle of a drug screen unless you are really interested in offering them the position. Interestingly, most of those who have passed the interview process pass the drug screen, only a very few fail and the job is rescinded because of it.
But with both the employment and educational background check, a criminal background check and the drug screening, should any negative, i.e. an offer disqualifying result come out, the applicant has the right to dispute it with the 3rd party background check company or reporting agency or drug screening company and remedy it if it is proven to be inaccurate. It is similar to the protections you have when applying for a credit card or mortgage. If you are denied, you have the legal right to be informed as to the reason why and if you think there is a mistake, you have the right to dispute it and have it corrected should it be in error and your application reconsidered without prejudice.
Another reason why we only accept actual signed job applications from those candidates, who we are prepared to make a job offer to, is for EEOC compliance. If we take applications from everyone, every single person who is interested in a job, or even those who just show up at the HR office looking for a job, even if we have no open positions, if we take their signed application then we then have to track it for EEOC compliance. This is why a lot of companies including the one I work for, will not take “cold call” job applications for non-specific job openings or as we do for most of our hourly manufacturing positions, we refer them to one of the several temp agencies we use to staff those positions on a temp or temp to perm basis. They still have to pass a background screening and pass a drug test to work for us, but the temp agency handles this for us based on our requirements. When and if we offer them a permanent position, depending on how long they have been a “temp”, we only do an update background check and drug screening if it has been more than a year.
I might have read this if it weren’t so long. I am certain you are right.
Actually, it’s the other way around. By declaring oneself “transgender” after employed, the employer has to pick up the Obamacare medical tab. If they let you go, you then have grounds to sue based upon transgender bias. You’ll probably see lots of cases where people claim one preference, then change their mind, all within their rights.
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.