Companies won't even look at resumes for the long-term unemployed

[downtown]

The most common explanation in the gap being simply "I couldn't find a work for a month, and then people saw the gap and it self-perpetuated because they never gave me the chance due to it", it's hardly "unexplained" and is born simply out of stupid prejudice.

That has rarely been in the case in my conversations since I've been in this business.

 

[LamaGT]

But it doesn't, and it shouldn't! Hiring just about anybody for something other than retail or food service is a significant investment, and it is important for both parties to make sure a job is a good fit. A guy with the skills, experience, but who will obviously be a personality conflict with his supervisor, or who doesn't have drive, or does not share the value system of that company, it's a big problem!

That's the entire reason we have interviews, because a resume can only give an initial snapshot. A big, unexplained gap can raise a lot of red flags, most of which are perfectly legitimate in my mind.

Not finding work is a legitimate reason for not working to me. Even a little holiday is legitimate, it's not like we must all work to death. Trying writing or something else and not succeeding is a perfectly legitimate reason too, there's really a lot of possible reasons. I can understand that the market is overcrowded and you'd prioritise "hard working" people, but entirely dismissing a person because of a gap is, to put it midly, harsh.

You can also fire a person in hours, why would hiring be a particularly huge investment?

 

[downtown]

.
Forcing businesses to hire less qualified people will simply change the nature of the problem. Getting the economy out of the swamp would actually fix the problem, and some of these structurally unemployed people could start working their way back into the system.

I completely agree. A non-heartless state or community would make sure there is plenty of capacity to retrain workers whose skillsets don't match up with the marketplace anymore, and to provide ways to stimulate consumer demand, which will drive up hiring.

"professional network"

Cronyism.

Then get some Cronies.

 

[bhsup]

I'm sorry, I should have said "good ol' boys network" instead. People should not be hired based on who they know, but rather on what they can do.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Lots of things shouldn't be the way they are.

 

[galdre]

But it doesn't, and it shouldn't! Hiring just about anybody for something other than retail or food service is a significant investment, and it is important for both parties to make sure a job is a good fit. A guy with the skills, experience, but who will obviously be a personality conflict with his supervisor, or who doesn't have drive, or does not share the value system of that company, it's a big problem!

That's the entire reason we have interviews, because a resume can only give an initial snapshot. A big, unexplained gap can raise a lot of red flags, most of which are perfectly legitimate in my mind.

I agree that there are other considerations beyond skills and experience, but I still do not see how a gap would raise a lot of red flags. Employement history (what roles a person held and whether they were promoted) and references will tell a recruiter if an prospective employee has drive. Personality conflicts, while a consideration, should be low on the list of priorities, and sharing the value system of the company will also come out in the interview and from the resume and references.

So what are those red flags that a gap in employment signifies?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And, as I pointed out, businesses are not charities. Society does need a way to rehabilitate/retrain/take care of people who are not employable, but I don't think forcing businesses to take them on at gunpoint is necessarily the best idea.

I stumbled into this thread on the wrong foot due to personal hurt feelings, but I definitely see downtown's points now.

It's still an interesting problem, though. You can get caught in the downward pull pretty fast and it can be almost impossible to get out. Sure, you can bag groceries or whatever, but I think that would drive a person with potential beyond bagging groceries over the edge eventually.

Ordinarily I'd tend to agree with Downtown on this. But this isn't ordinary circumstances we are talking about. This was the worst recession since the Great Depression that has left millions and millions out of work for long stretches of time. Just like with the Great Depression, the economic downturn has been bad enough and the effects of it lingering long enough that many people who ordinarily would have work by now simply can't find it because there is none to be had. Further, there is enough of them out there that I don't feel justified in trying to claim that they can't find work because they haven't stayed busy with volunteering, retraining or whatever.

There is simply too many people suffering to write them all off as individual failures in the sense that they aren't getting off their butts and trying to get work. Plus, think of the entire families that have been devastated by this and the knock-down effect having multiple members out of work has on the rest of the families. This problem is simply too big to cast blame on individuals, this is a societal issue that needs fixing. I do not think that laws such as proposed in the OP are necessarily the fix we need and I don't have real solutions either. I just do not agree with Downtowns assesment on the fairness of hiring practices at the moment and the implications he's made about the legions of out-of-work people.

Possibly, (and this just popped in my head and may be a terrible idea) a solution would be a law that forces large corporations with massive war chests to spend a significant fraction of their savings. Part of why we have so much unemployment isn't that all business aren't making money; they are, but they refuse to hire or invest in new stuff due to uncertainty. Take away that option by forcing them spend some cash and that might help get things moving again. Of course this will never pass, but another reason why we're still in a quagmire is because our political process is so frozen that nothing that can help passes.

 

[Azale]

Oh, I got it now, it's one of manifestations of the American No work = Lazy Sh*t mentality derived from the Socialism = Highest Evil. It's all clear now.

Stop it. There are people on this forum who deserve mockery, dt is not one of them.

I completely agree. A non-heartless state or community would make sure there is plenty of capacity to retrain workers whose skillsets don't match up with the marketplace anymore, and to provide ways to stimulate consumer demand, which will drive up hiring.

The US is not one of those non-heartless state's though. In an environment where those retraining programs don't really exist, where not only is the social safety net pretty bare (relatively speaking) but a stigma, and where the overwhelming political priority is focusing on national debt (a strategy that constricts demand), isn't this hiring practice a big problem?

awkward sentence, don't feel like fixing it

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The US is not one of those non-heartless state's though. In an environment where those retraining programs don't really exist, where not only is the social safety net pretty bare (relatively speaking) but a stigma, and where the overwhelming political priority is focusing on national debt (a strategy that constricts demand), isn't this hiring practice a big problem?

awkward sentence, don't feel like fixing it

Yes this, I agree with you here. It's folly (IMHO) to assume people have the means to go get themselves retraining - especially when, say, they've drained all of their financial resources and assets by supporting their family while looking for work. This period of economic malaise has gone on long enough and is deep enough that we do need bigger solutions. I don't think forcing hiring practices to change is a magic bullet but I think the thought process that goes into those hiring practices is badly flawed as it is fitted to a situation that doesn't exist presently.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The United States is devolving into a less prosperous country and this is what that looks like. We're eventually going to realize that we are going to have less than our parents and our kids are going to have less than us. We're "progressing" backwards.

A lot of people work really hard and beat the odds and won't agree with what I'm saying, but eventually nobody will be able to deny it. The good news is that if you get on the "top end" ( and a lot of you on this forum are wonderfully successful people who have a good shot at it ) it'll probably be pretty okay, but a lot of the rest of us are going to regress to less than first world conditions. At least IMO.

Here's an interesting question: Will we be able to maintain our high standards for food quality, drug safety, etc. when we're not fully a first world country any more? I think a lot of that stuff will have to be relaxed or eliminated eventually. When you have to choose between meat that might be unsafe or no meat at all that regulation isn't going to seem like such a good idea.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The United States is devolving into a less prosperous country and this is what that looks like. We're eventually going to realize that we are going to have less than our parents and our kids are going to have less than us. We're "progressing" backwards.

A lot of people work really hard and beat the odds and won't agree with what I'm saying, but eventually nobody will be able to deny it. The good news is that if you get on the "top end" ( and a lot of you on this forum are wonderfully successful people who have a good shot at it ) it'll probably be pretty okay, but a lot of the rest of us are going to regress to less than first world conditions. At least IMO.

Here's an interesting question: Will we be able to maintain our high standards for food quality, drug safety, etc. when we're not fully a first world country any more? I think a lot of that stuff will have to be relaxed or eliminated eventually. When you have to choose between meat that might be unsafe or no meat at all that regulation isn't going to seem like such a good idea.

I don't think the Great Recession was that bad, even if our national response to it was lack-luster. We will bounce back, we always have and sure things will change in the meantime but there is 0% chance we will slip from 1st world status.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't know. I hope so.

 

[downtown]

Not finding work is a legitimate reason for not working to me. Even a little holiday is legitimate, it's not like we must all work to death. Trying writing or something else and not succeeding is a perfectly legitimate reason too, there's really a lot of possible reasons. I can understand that the market is overcrowded and you'd prioritise "hard working" people, but entirely dismissing a person because of a gap is, to put it midly, harsh.

A lot of those are legitimate, sure. If somebody gave an actual explanation on their cover letter or resume, there may not be any problem at all. I would certainly never penalize a candidate who took time off to try a different field and failed. The point is that they need to explain it. People who have work history gaps but give *explanations* are not penalized nearly to the extent that people who don't are.

You can also fire a person in hours, why would hiring be a particularly huge investment?

A new hire will take time, potentially up to 6 months, to get acclimated and fully operational. If you don't think somebody is going to stick around or be successful for at least that long, hiring them is a waste of money.

I agree that there are other considerations beyond skills and experience, but I still do not see how a gap would raise a lot of red flags. Employement history (what roles a person held and whether they were promoted) and references will tell a recruiter if an prospective employee has drive. Personality conflicts, while a consideration, should be low on the list of priorities, and sharing the value system of the company will also come out in the interview and from the resume and references.

In the US, few HR departments go through the effort for references, beyond simply confirming hire date, departure date, title and salary. There are some significant legal obligations and liabilities that a firm exposes themselves to if they ask other questions, so there is a big incentive not to do it.

Nobody is going to check references until much later in the interview process though, simply because it takes a long time to get any kind of useful information.

So what are those red flags that a gap in employment signifies?

This depends a lot on the industry and the type of position.

If the candidate has a particular skill that is hard to find (say, a background in a specific kind of engineer or exposure to a certain manufacturing environment), or has another major draw (say, a degree with a very prestigious university), but hasn't worked for 6 months, I'd have lots of questions. If that person was looking hard, they would surely have been invited to interviews, at least in the beginning of that process. Was this person's personality so poor that they rubbed multiple interviews the wrong way? Was this person being totally unrealistic about their salary or job description expectations? Is this person just a bad networker? Maybe this person really did just have some bad luck in the early going and then never got any calls back. That happens (it's unlikely), but it does happen.

If the person is less skilled, or lives in a smaller market, why hasn't this person tried to move, or tried to enhance their skills, or enrolled in school, or taken temporary assignments? After 6 months of failure, why hasn't this candidate tried to change up their job search strategy?

A lot of these questions can be answered in a cover letter, the resume objective, or the resume itself. A gap, with no explanation at all, raises a lot of questions.

The US is not one of those non-heartless state's though. In an environment where those retraining programs don't really exist, where not only is the social safety net pretty bare (relatively speaking) but a stigma, and where the overwhelming political priority is focusing on national debt (a strategy that constricts demand), isn't this hiring practice a big problem?

awkward sentence, don't feel like fixing it

If this is a highly prevalent practice in very basic and entry level job openings, then yes, I think it could be a problem. If it's more prevalent in higher level positions, it isn't ideal, but I don't think it's a catastrophe.

I do think that our labor market has a real problem with mismatched skill sets among workers, and less than ideal skills in marketing themselves, which makes things harder for everybody.

 

[warpus]

In the end employers seem to have their pick of the litter right now . There aren't many jobs and there are tons of applicants, so.. it's an employer's market, or so it seems.

Seems to make a bit of sense then that employers are going to go after those most in demand first, in this situation.. Those in demand are those who have been employed most recently.. So.. If an employer sees a giant stack of applications, it's no wonder they'd first want to look at those who have had similar employment recently, over those who haven't worked in 6 months or longer.

So is the problem really unsavoury hiring practices, or an overabundance of people looking for work in a marketplace that doesn't have that many to offer?

 

[LamaGT]

Stop it. There are people on this forum who deserve mockery, dt is not one of them.



The US is not one of those non-heartless state's though. In an environment where those retraining programs don't really exist, where not only is the social safety net pretty bare (relatively speaking) but a stigma, and where the overwhelming political priority is focusing on national debt (a strategy that constricts demand), isn't this hiring practice a big problem?

awkward sentence, don't feel like fixing it

I wasn't mocking, it was just a slight hyperbole. I respect dt, but I don't respect his hiring practices (or apparently any HR man's). The simple fact is that even some Democrats consider unemployment as entirely one's own fault and there's in general a hatred of anything related to socialism, which then promotes this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In the end employers seem to have their pick of the litter right now . There aren't many jobs and there are tons of applicants, so.. it's an employer's market, or so it seems.

It unquestionably is, as evidenced by the fact you raised earlier: that employers can demand a decade of experience for an 'entry level' position and similar things.

Seems to make a bit of sense then that employers are going to go after those most in demand first, in this situation.. Those in demand are those who have been employed most recently.. So.. If an employer sees a giant stack of applications, it's no wonder they'd first want to look at those who have had similar employment recently, over those who haven't worked in 6 months or longer.

Well, it's not even necessarily that the recently. Really with a field of potential hires so deep and firms willing to hold back on spending, they can afford to sit around and wait to hire the one applicant out of 5000 that has their insanely specific requirements even if he's been out of work for a long stretch. Or maybe they won't because even though this guy may have all of the qualifications the stretch of unemployment stinks to the employer so they pass him up as well. I don't know, it's such a mess.

So is the problem really unsavoury hiring practices, or an overabundance of people looking for work in a marketplace that doesn't have that many to offer?

Both and other factors as well in my estimation.

 

[sophie]

I agree that there are other considerations beyond skills and experience, but I still do not see how a gap would raise a lot of red flags. Employement history (what roles a person held and whether they were promoted) and references will tell a recruiter if an prospective employee has drive. Personality conflicts, while a consideration, should be low on the list of priorities, and sharing the value system of the company will also come out in the interview and from the resume and references.

So what are those red flags that a gap in employment signifies?

Because it says "This guy has been applying for jobs, it obviously hasn't worked, and yet he has done nothing different to change this situation." If something isn't working, and you're a driven, motivated individual, presumably you are going to assess the situation, figure out what's going wrong and trying to remedy that. Maybe your skillset is out of date, meaning you should go take some computer or skillbuilding classes. Maybe your education level is too low, meaning you should attend night school or go back to college. Maybe you don't have the work experience or connections you need, so you volunteer, do an internship, or freelance. The point is that you demonstrated intuitiveness, drive, creativity, and problem solving. Hell anything other than sitting on your ass all day moping about how you don't have a job or uploading your resume to an online job website and applying to anything which looks remotely inviting.

It may seem unfair, but the whole system revolves around giving prospective employers a 1-2 page summary of why you should be hired. It's intrinsically going to be unfair.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So is the problem really unsavoury hiring practices, or an overabundance of people looking for work in a marketplace that doesn't have that many to offer?

This.

And, like I said, I'm not some smug b*stard who is saying this from a position where it doesn't impact me.

 

[warpus]

A lot of people aren't applying to jobs properly, which might be a part of the problem. I know people who just apply online and that's it.. That almost never works. You need to be creative, vigilant, and personaeble. Anonymous applications almost never do it and it seems that a lot of people send out mass applications to random companies and wonder why they're still unemployed.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Because it says "This guy has been applying for jobs, it obviously hasn't worked, and yet he has done nothing different to change this situation." If something isn't working, and you're a driven, motivated individual, presumably you are going to assess the situation, figure out what's going wrong and trying to remedy that. Maybe your skillset is out of date, meaning you should go take some computer or skillbuilding classes. Maybe your education level is too low, meaning you should attend night school or go back to college. Maybe you don't have the work experience or connections you need, so you volunteer, do an internship, or freelance. The point is that you demonstrated intuitiveness, drive, creativity, and problem solving. Hell anything other than sitting on your ass all day moping about how you don't have a job or uploading your resume to an online job website and applying to anything which looks remotely inviting.

Well, on top of the other counterpoints I've raised to this line of thought, also please consider this:

How much time, effort and resources do you honestly expect a breadwinner to devote towards retraining, volunteering, skill building and networking when their primary concern is paying the bills and giving their kids a roof over their head. Certainly they should consider other options such as volunteering but given the gaps in our social safety net, why are they considered at fault for trying their best simply to find jobs in the traditional manner (i.e. job searching and applying). Then factor in the fact that there is legions of people like that and entire families struggling to get by along with corporations who have set the hire bar unrealistically high plus corporations that just won't hire and shrinking government budgets....then the picture becomes a bit muddier than 'well people aren't doing the things they need to do to land a job'.

A lot of people aren't applying to jobs properly, which might be a part of the problem. I know people who just apply online and that's it.. That almost never works. You need to be creative, vigilant, and personaeble. Anonymous applications almost never do it and it seems that a lot of people send out mass applications to random companies and wonder why they're still unemployed.

I don't disagree with you on principle but I'd like to add that sometimes, with the HR/IT hiring systems in place what you described is all you can get. Take my experiences with Boeing as an example:

1) They list jobs online
2) You register for the site, post your resume and apply for jobs

*You are NOT allowed to seek out contact information for the hiring manager
*You are NOT given any contact information
*You are stopped any time you try and find any information
*The job is probably listed from hundreds of miles away and you don't even have a name, office location or phone number to go off of

So it's literally a one-way street where all you can do is blast their website with applications, there is no other way to do it. I know Boeing is not alone in this practice.