The many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXI

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. A lot of the online modules require you to submit it manually, which is fine. For the ones that want a resume uploaded, or for when I apply in person, I'd like to have a resume handy that doesn't look terrible. First impressions and all that jazz.

Definately.

I wish I could be of more help to you but I wouldn't really know what makes a resume good or bad.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm a Canadian. Does that change anything about being forbidden?

I simply don't know.

I could try to google it up some, but I'm positive your diligence regarding figuring that out would be more substantial than mine.

Do you have any resources to tap? Around here I could get resume assistance either though school career centers or even the unemployment bureau while I was on that. Not that all of the assistance was top-notch, unfortunately.

The only real piece of advice I find myself giving to people without a lot of work experience under their belt while writing a resume is to show not tell. Don't simply say that you have a skill or that you can do something, you need to give an experience where you were skilled or did something instead. Anyone can, and will, say that they can do things. Instead you need to show that you have done things. It's hard to do when you haven't been working for a lot of time, but it's worth it whenever you pull it off.

 

[Synobun]

I simply don't know.

I could try to google it up some, but I'm positive your diligence regarding figuring that out would be more substantial than mine.

Do you have any resources to tap? Around here I could get resume assistance either though school career centers or even the unemployment bureau while I was on that. Not that all of the assistance was top-notch, unfortunately.

The only real piece of advice I find myself giving to people without a lot of work experience under their belt while writing a resume is to show not tell. Don't simply say that you have a skill or that you can do something, you need to give an experience where you were skilled or did something instead. Anyone can, and will, say that they can do things. Instead you need to show that you have done things. It's hard to do when you haven't been working for a lot of time, but it's worth it whenever you pull it off.

I've tapped the extent of my resources at this point. I think what I have is okay but I want to be sure that it's okay. Can't access the school career centres until May, unfortunately!

I've kept my skills to things that are present in my experience tab. Like you guessed, there isn't much there but I'm a pretty big volunteer writer for a NYC charity, so there's definitely something there that can be tapped into and used as justification for certain skills I wrote down.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Arakhor]

I have never bothered putting my diving licence or marital status on my CV. It's not the employer's business. I wouldn't include pregnancy or family details either if I was female.

 

[Synobun]

I have never bothered putting my diving licence or marital status on my CV. It's not the employer's business. I wouldn't include pregnancy or family details either if I was female.

Wouldn't age and your living status be the employer's business, as a means to determine where exactly you're at and if your experience is pretty damn good all things considered?

I suppose that's more of a rhetorical question than anything. I understand the corporate world and how most big companies can't afford to have such a individualized screening process. It'd just be really cool to get a job that has an experience requirement but gets waived because it's literally impossible for one to have that much experience just yet.

 

[The_J]

I'm a Canadian. Does that change anything about being forbidden?

I'd assume that the laws are roughly the same everywhere in the western world.
At least we have somehow the same here.

I have never bothered putting my diving licence [...]. It's not the employer's business.

Depends sure on the job, because you have to be mobile in quite some.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wouldn't age and your living status be the employer's business, as a means to determine where exactly you're at and if your experience is pretty damn good all things considered?

I suppose that's more of a rhetorical question than anything. I understand the corporate world and how most big companies can't afford to have such a individualized screening process. It'd just be really cool to get a job that has an experience requirement but gets waived because it's literally impossible for one to have that much experience just yet.

I think there are lots of arguments to be made that age is the business of your employer, or at least for some employers. Pilots, for instance, face mandatory retirement (in the US anyways) at a certain age. Then you have to factor in healthcare and retirement plan benefits the employer would be taking on. Oh and you have to be above a certain age to work to begin with and different jobs have different minimum/maximum ages by laws.

Every single application I've every filled out has asked for my age and I don't find it to be an intrusion of privacy.


As for unreasonable experience requirements, due to the ability of employers to be picky because of the recession, they are finding (so I've heard) that they are having to dial back some requirements like X years experience. They pushed the requirements artificially high knowing they had their pick of the litter, so to speak, with all the unemployed people looking for work. But then they kept getting pickier and pickier to the point where they exclude virtually everyone from the pool of eligible workers.

They are having to reign that back in a bit. There are also the odd cases where a not-unreasonable set of requirements can't be met for whatever reason so they lower the bar. This is why if you really want a job and it doesn't cost you signficant time or effort to apply, you should apply even if you don't strictly meet all their criteria.

 

[Flying Pig]

In the UK, it's illegal to discriminate on grounds of age when considering an applicant for a job.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Except, I assume, those who are too old to work in any job. And are their not jobs with mandatory retirement ages either by law or by contract in the UK?

(It's illegal here, but maybe I'm getting hung up on what constitutes discrimination)

 

[Borachio]

Except, I assume, those who are too old to work in any job. And are their not jobs with mandatory retirement ages either by law or by contract in the UK?

(It's illegal here, but maybe I'm getting hung up on what constitutes discrimination)

I think the idea is that no one is too old, or too young, per se. They may not be physically able to do a job, and that could be age-related. But that's not the point.

I think the police and the army still have some mandatory retirement ages. But I expect they'll disappear before too long.

Age-ism has no more rational excuse than sexism or racism.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the idea is that no one is too old, or too young, per se. They may not be physically able to do a job, and that could be age-related. But that's not the point.

Then yeah, I'm just getting hung up on what counts as discrimination.

I think the police and the army still have some mandatory retirement ages. But I expect they'll disappear before too long.

Why? I don't see it as discriminatory to keep people who physically can't do a job from doing it, even if that inability is age related. Surely you need to be somewhat young and healthy to keep up with bad guys in these professions?

Age-ism has no more rational excuse than sexism or racism.

Agreed.

 

[Borachio]

Why? I don't see it as discriminatory to keep people who physically can't do a job from doing it, even if that inability is age related. Surely you need to be somewhat young and healthy to keep up with bad guys in these professions?

I agree. It's pretty meaningless to have an arbitrary cut-off age.

There was some scandal about active police officers being unfit recently. I can't remember where I saw it. It might even have been in the USA #1.

 

[Flying Pig]

Why? I don't see it as discriminatory to keep people who physically can't do a job from doing it, even if that inability is age related. Surely you need to be somewhat young and healthy to keep up with bad guys in these professions?

Yes, but the reason for losing your job has to be performance-related, rather than just age-related: if you can still do the job at 70, there's no legal grounds for dismissal on age alone.

The Armed Forces don't have a mandatory retirement age in theory, but you must apply to extend your contract on an annual basis after it reaches 22 years, so it's not hard for them to get rid of the old warhorses if they want to - indeed, these are normally the first to go when defence cuts loom.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why? I don't see it as discriminatory to keep people who physically can't do a job from doing it, even if that inability is age related. Surely you need to be somewhat young and healthy to keep up with bad guys in these professions?

The relatively small pool of professions where it is a bona fide necessity to be able to lift a certain amount or run a certain distance or the like are also professions where compliance with physical fitness standards can be, and often already are, tested. If a 63 year old police applicant can bench the required amount of weight and run a mile in the required amount of time why should there be some regulation that immediately disqualifies him(or her!) from applying for the position when an unfit 23 year old could qualify to test?

The only concern I could see at all would be HR related costs, pension expenses, need to rehire in several year, but I think those are a red-herring. Your pension benefits often depend on the length of employment, not merely that you were employed at all, and people don't stay in jobs for 30 years to get their gold watches anymore. I'm going to agree with Mr. B - I think these qualifications are rightly dying.

 

[Arakhor]

Wouldn't age and your living status be the employer's business, as a means to determine where exactly you're at and if your experience is pretty damn good all things considered?

I include my date of birth as a matter of course, but there are almost no circumstances in which my family life should be relevant to an interview.

Depends sure on the job, because you have to be mobile in quite some.

Definitely, and I would mention in the interview that I can't drive, but I'm not including it on my CV to give them an easy reason to throw it in the bin.

 

[dutchfire]

Synsensa: This thread could help http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=445641

re: Driver's licence: I would never mention not having a driver's licence (except when applying for a job as driver, I suppose), but I could see how mentioning you do have it could be positive for you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thanks dutchfire for posting that link. I asked a question or three there.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Still curious about this question,

Can someone give me a brief rundown and comparison between the ideas of Clausewitz and Jomini regarding military strategy? Wiki's not making it clear enough for me.

and I actually have a new question too. Are photos from your digital camera admissible in court if your landlord claims you caused damage to your apartment? I would figure that in an age of image editing software you'd still be at square one.

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe try the questions thread in the history forum for the military strategy thing instead? You're probably more likely to get people who know something about it to read it there.

 

[Synobun]

Are photos from your digital camera admissible in court if your landlord claims you caused damage to your apartment? I would figure that in an age of image editing software you'd still be at square one.

Give copies of the digital photos to your landlord and lawyer upon taking them. Have them labeled in a folder, with exact time of photos taken. The most important part is giving a copy to your lawyer, though. They have it on record and you won't find too many firms creating fake records because of the Hell storm that would be dropped on them if the courts found out.