Are some job candidates disqualified because they're unemployed?

Are Some Job Candidates Disqualified Because They're Unemployed? - InsideTech.com

I'm sure we've all run into this a time or two. I'm glad that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission is looking into it. There are still a ton of people without work out there and companies are just now starting to hire again.

It's like if you were laid off and didn't immediately find something else, there is something wrong with you. Maybe no one was hiring? A little to obvious of a reason I know....

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

networker050184

I think its like the situation where a wedding ring makes a man somehow more attractive. Women know that you must have something to offer if someone is currently willing to put up with your BS. Or at least the theory goes.

Kind of along the same line with employment. The employer thinks the candidate must be doing something right if their current employer is putting up with their BS.

eansdad

Not sure about unemployed but I do know of resumes being rejected for being away from the job duties...like someone in technology that hasn't had a tech job in over a year.

Turgon

in law no. In life yes. Stay employed.

NinjaBoy

I read in an article (can't find it now) that it's harder for someone who has been out of work for more than 6 months to get their foot back in the door. So it does happen.

However it does have it's advantages also, we hired one of our techs who wasn't employed at the time. Because of this, he was able to start sooner on the job than later (normally we have to wait up to a month for a new person to start).

-Ken

mikedisd2

Aw man, I've been out of work for a week now. I better get a move on.

earweed

I've been out of work for a month (sort of) but doing a lot of freelance PC work (upgrades, reimages, virus cleans) and moving next week. I have a couple short term project gigs lined up where I'm going and a lot of applications already out in new area. I'm actually better networked in new area than old area due to relatives in area and that's where I went to High school and lot of old friends still there.

genXrcist

The problem in my opinion is unemployment. If an applicant has been unemployed for a year but sitting on their UI then my assumption is they are lazy and/or a bit immature. Harsh words yes and certainly not applicable in all cases but hear me out. There are a lot of people on UI who could get jobs but consider it beneath them to take a job with lower pay or a lower title than what they had. Not interested in that person. There are also a lot of them who would rather sit on UI as long as possible and take the free handout. Not interested in that person either.

Now I would be interested in the person who has been unemployed for only a few months but has been actively searching. A good question to ask them is "What other companies have you applied for?" It gives me a good idea of what they're looking for (and if we're actually a good fit and not just a stepping stone) and how far they're willing to travel from their home.

erpadmin

genXrcist wrote: »

The problem in my opinion is unemployment. If an applicant has been unemployed for a year but sitting on their UI then my assumption is they are lazy and/or a bit immature. Harsh words yes and certainly not applicable in all cases but hear me out. There are a lot of people on UI who could get jobs but consider it beneath them to take a job with lower pay or a lower title than what they had. Not interested in that person. There are also a lot of them who would rather sit on UI as long as possible and take the free handout. Not interested in that person either.

Now I would be interested in the person who has been unemployed for only a few months but has been actively searching. A good question to ask them is "What other companies have you applied for?" It gives me a good idea of what they're looking for (and if we're actually a good fit and not just a stepping stone) and how far they're willing to travel from their home.

The first part of your post is a bit harsh and unfair. I do recognize there is SOME truth to that, but you are not taking into account the whole totality of circumstances.

I was on unemployment for ~ 8 months about a year after 9/11. The first month was still a shock as I was in a faze that I wasn't going to a job for the first time in 9 years. (Including part time work). After I got over my funk, I was applying to jobs like a mad man and getting interviews. I was even going to headhunters who once saw me as gold, but now I was worth less than copper because I was unemployed. I did end up getting a job that eventually made me "erpadmin" and have been gainfully employed ever since for ~ 8 years since the dark times of unemployment. The one job that I tried to land was a JOAT job, but they couldn't get passed the fact I didn't have an MCSE.

Trust me though, unemployment is not fun, and contrary to your attitude about it, I was not being lazy in those 8 months. This period was after 9/11 and was just as bad getting employed as during the recession we just experienced now. I try my very best to make sure my skills are currently up so that I NEVER go through that God-Awful experience anymore. If I'm laid-off today, I'm pretty confident I can get a job tomorrow...and I'm more confident that I wouldn't have to be a password-reset ninja to do it.

Many people who experienced unemployment, IMO, do not want to go through that again. It does suck, to say the least. It was very depressing to make that phone call.

Anonymouse

networker050184 wrote: »

I think its like the situation where a wedding ring makes a man somehow more attractive. Women know that you must have something to offer if someone is currently willing to put up with your BS. Or at least the theory goes.

Kind of along the same line with employment. The employer thinks the candidate must be doing something right if their current employer is putting up with their BS.

I wonder if any HR people would ever take into account that the employee was doing everything right but the employer was doing everything wrong and had to lay off employees?

genXrcist

erpadmin wrote: »

The first part of your post is a bit harsh and unfair. I do recognize there is SOME truth to that, but you are not taking into account the whole totality of circumstances.

I was on unemployment for ~ 8 months about a year after 9/11. The first month was still a shock as I was in a faze that I wasn't going to a job for the first time in 9 years. (Including part time work). After I got over my funk, I was applying to jobs like a mad man and getting interviews. I was even going to headhunters who once saw me as gold, but now I was worth less than copper because I was unemployed. I did end up getting a job that eventually made me "erpadmin" and have been gainfully employed ever since for ~ 8 years since the dark times of unemployment. The one job that I tried to land was a JOAT job, but they couldn't get passed the fact I didn't have an MCSE.

Trust me though, unemployment is not fun, and contrary to your attitude about it, I was not being lazy in those 8 months. This period was after 9/11 and was just as bad getting employed as during the recession we just experienced now. I try my very best to make sure my skills are currently up so that I NEVER go through that God-Awful experience anymore. If I'm laid-off today, I'm pretty confident I can get a job tomorrow...and I'm more confident that I wouldn't have to be a password-reset ninja to do it.

Many people who experienced unemployment, IMO, do not want to go through that again. It does suck, to say the least. It was very depressing to make that phone call.

I was speaking in general terms and did mention that there are exceptions. It's a fact that when UI benefits were running out the unemployed rate went down because people had no choice but to get a job.

I'm thinking about this from the perspective of someone who hires. It takes a lot of hours to filter through resume's, interview people and then weeks if not months to recoup the lost productivity required to bring a new person up to speed. As such I think it's very reasonable to generalize groups of people. What else can you do since you don't know these people and certainly can't take the time to get to know their situations. I may lose out on hiring a great candidate but it's far more likely that I'm also not going to inadvertantly hire a "bad egg" so to speak as a result of this generalization.

I've been unemployed and on UI twice. The first time I was young and immature and not once did I look for a job for a year while I was soaking up the free money. I was the guy I wouldn't want to hire today.

The 2nd time I wanted to further myself so I studied intensely to make the most use of my time and I aggressively job hunted. Three months later I had a job.

And last Nov. 1st when I got laid off unexpectedly I had a new job less than a week later.

za3bour

erpadmin wrote: »

The first part of your post is a bit harsh and unfair. I do recognize there is SOME truth to that, but you are not taking into account the whole totality of circumstances.

I was on unemployment for ~ 8 months about a year after 9/11. The first month was still a shock as I was in a faze that I wasn't going to a job for the first time in 9 years. (Including part time work). After I got over my funk, I was applying to jobs like a mad man and getting interviews. I was even going to headhunters who once saw me as gold, but now I was worth less than copper because I was unemployed. I did end up getting a job that eventually made me "erpadmin" and have been gainfully employed ever since for ~ 8 years since the dark times of unemployment. The one job that I tried to land was a JOAT job, but they couldn't get passed the fact I didn't have an MCSE.

Trust me though, unemployment is not fun, and contrary to your attitude about it, I was not being lazy in those 8 months. This period was after 9/11 and was just as bad getting employed as during the recession we just experienced now. I try my very best to make sure my skills are currently up so that I NEVER go through that God-Awful experience anymore. If I'm laid-off today, I'm pretty confident I can get a job tomorrow...and I'm more confident that I wouldn't have to be a password-reset ninja to do it.

Many people who experienced unemployment, IMO, do not want to go through that again. It does suck, to say the least. It was very depressing to make that phone call.

I think you don't really get what an employment mean until you are unemployed because of layoff. When you have a family it is even worse you simply feel useless/hopeless and that's not a kind feeling at all.

It’s one of those experiences that truly change you, it's a very hard one too that would affect you for quite some time.

I agree with you no one would experience it again and we think we learn a LOT out of it. You can't just say that you're lazy and thats why you didn't find a job, many factors should be considered here.

eansdad

For those who really want to work there is always something. While I was unemployeed after being laid off from Compaq/HP after the merger I did 1-3 month project work on and off traveling as far as Washington DC for 1 month and driving 2 hrs 1 way to Lakehurst for a 3 month job. I even did a temp stint as a tier 1 for a month in Wilmington DE. Did some of those jobs suck...yes, but I stayed working. Those short term temp positions after awhile got me a lot of contacts and after almost 2 years of doing this it landed me a full time gig at one of the places I temped then I got a better job at another place I did a lot of project work. With the mass amount of expierence I had it got me to the job I am at now.

I didn't want to fall into the stigma of being lazy by being on unemployment for any great length of time. I also didn't want to have the skills that I had getting rusty.

Is it fair to **** a resume for being on unemployment? No, not all people are on unemployment for being bad at their job. Do I think people on unemployment have a harder time finding work? Yes, expecially after being on unemployment for a long time.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take a leap forward.

Anonymouse

eansdad wrote: »

For those who really want to work there is always something. While I was unemployeed after being laid off from Compaq/HP after the merger I did 1-3 month project work on and off traveling as far as Washington DC for 1 month and driving 2 hrs 1 way to Lakehurst for a 3 month job. I even did a temp stint as a tier 1 for a month in Wilmington DE. Did some of those jobs suck...yes, but I stayed working. Those short term temp positions after awhile got me a lot of contacts and after almost 2 years of doing this it landed me a full time gig at one of the places I temped then I got a better job at another place I did a lot of project work. With the mass amount of expierence I had it got me to the job I am at now.

I didn't want to fall into the stigma of being lazy by being on unemployment for any great length of time. I also didn't want to have the skills that I had getting rusty.

Is it fair to **** a resume for being on unemployment? No, not all people are on unemployment for being bad at their job. Do I think people on unemployment have a harder time finding work? Yes, expecially after being on unemployment for a long time.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take a leap forward.

Regarding your last statement in your post, when I got laid off no one would hire me due to lack of experience. I was thinking of going back and being a computer tech at Fry's Electronics or BB Geeksquad but the thought of possibly being disqualified from unemployment because I had a full time job didn't make sense since unemployment benefits actually paid my bills leaving me a couple of bucks a month while working those jobs would have paid less than unemployment. I'm wondering how you guys feel about making less money working fulltime than what unemployment checks pay you?

genXrcist

I don't hold it against anyone for taking free government money but none of us should feel justified in doing it as that leads down the road of entitlement.

When looking at a stack of resumes I for one don't automatically disqualify the unemployed folks because they have one big thing going for them that the employed folks don't....availability. If I want someone to start ASAP they're who I look to. That being said if they've been unemployed for 6 mos+ then they're behind the 8-ball in my book.

These government safety nets do some of what they were intended to do. In this case UI is supposed to keep people off the street. But the reality is that if UI didn't exist you would see a lot higher savings rate in America. People would be forced to be responsible, live within their means and save save save.

If you had 6 months worth of bills in the bank then think of the power you would have over your work life. No longer would you be subject to keeping a crappy job because w/o you're on the street. You would have the luxary of finding a job that you love. Just a thought.

erpadmin

genXrcist wrote: »

I don't hold it against anyone for taking free government money but none of us should feel justified in doing it as that leads down the road of entitlement.

When looking at a stack of resumes I for one don't automatically disqualify the unemployed folks because they have one big thing going for them that the employed folks don't....availability. If I want someone to start ASAP they're who I look to. That being said if they've been unemployed for 6 mos+ then they're behind the 8-ball in my book.

These government safety nets do some of what they were intended to do. In this case UI is supposed to keep people off the street. But the reality is that if UI didn't exist you would see a lot higher savings rate in America. People would be forced to be responsible, live within their means and save save save.

If you had 6 months worth of bills in the bank then think of the power you would have over your work life. No longer would you be subject to keeping a crappy job because w/o you're on the street. You would have the luxary of finding a job that you love. Just a thought.

Let's be clear about what UI is and what UI isn't...it is NOT free government money. Welfare IS free government money and UI is not welfare, no matter what sort of teabaggery spin anyone puts on it. You pay into unemployment insurance and you invoke the insurance in the event of a job loss.

Also, if you're making about $25k-$45k, depending on where in the US you are, then UI is probably a bit close to what you were making in your last full time job. Once you start hitting a high salary and then getting high expenses like a mortgage, than UI is crap and you do what you gotta do to make sure you keep your salary that is paying your bills and contributing to your savings so that you are never dependant on any UI.

Believe me, I know where you are going with what you meant. However, if someone's salary exceeded what they get in UI, you can "betcha" that folks aren't going to try to live off of UI for very long. At the very least, just know that UI is something people who work paid into, and that is the only "entitlement" they should expect. It's not welfare....

genXrcist

erpadmin wrote: »

Let's be clear about what UI is and what UI isn't...it is NOT free government money. Welfare IS free government money and UI is not welfare, no matter what sort of teabaggery spin anyone puts on it. You pay into unemployment insurance and you invoke the insurance in the event of a job loss.

Also, if you're making about $25k-$45k, depending on where in the US you are, then UI is probably a bit close to what you were making in your last full time job. Once you start hitting a high salary and then getting high expenses like a mortgage, than UI is crap and you do what you gotta do to make sure you keep your salary that is paying your bills and contributing to your savings so that you are never dependant on any UI.

Believe me, I know where you are going with what you meant. However, if someone's salary exceeded what they get in UI, you can "betcha" that folks aren't going to try to live off of UI for very long. At the very least, just know that UI is something people who work paid into, and that is the only "entitlement" they should expect. It's not welfare....

The only way someone "pays" into UI is with the understanding that the employer, who actually pays the UI, would pay the employee those funds instead of paying the UI premium. This is not a given nor a guarantee.

But, since the employer is actually paying the UI premium then in a sense the employee is still getting something for nothing. Private assistance if you will forced by the hand of Big Government.

All this is moot though as UI has been largely bankrupt Unemployment Insurance Buckles After Years of Underfunding - ProPublica for sometime and continues to pay out only because Congress passed legislation to fund it with money we don't have. That indeed then does make it welfare.

As for the higher salary and higher expenses, they don't have to go hand in hand. Too many people living at the brink of what they're earning (and more if they use Credit Cards) and then are in a panic about how to pay for their lifestyle when they lose their job.

Either live well below your means or make your means high enough to pay for your lifestyle. If one makes $100K/$45K per year they might want to consider living a $50K/$25K lifestyle so they can save for the inevitable rainy day. When I said 6 mos of bills earlier I was only referring to keeping a roof over your head(mortgage/heat/elec), clothes on your back, food on the table. These are survival expenses and everything else can go in the crapper if need be.

All of this can be avoided though with thoughtful planning and living well below your means. And this is exactly the sort of trait I want in an employee if I was hiring.

Daniel333

So I had a guy a few weeks ago. Looked "alright" on paper. Except for this gaping 6months of unemployment on this resume. The other candidate had 2 months. I told myself "don't just dismiss the guy on the 6th months" etc etc my manager reminded me I couldn't even legally mention it. But it's certainly an elephant in the room. So I hoped the guy to one way or another explain it away.

Well. I asked what have you been doing the last 6 months to stay current? He basically said "nothing" no certs, no projects, no volunteer work, no self study. what kind of loser in IT makes no technological progress in 6 months! I fully expect you to work a 50 hour week and still stay current. This guy had 6 months off and didn't ! He went on about vacations he recently took and how hard the market was right now and how this was his "4th" interview.

So I refuse to believe an MCSE/CCNA hasn't gotten at least 2 recruiters calling a month, now 6 months? He should have talked to a dozen or more people. Not to mention "vacation" while not having a job. This guy comes off fiscally irresponsible. Maybe he won it in a radio contest I don't know. But you can't say something like that and not expect me to compare you to the next guy.

Anyhow, needless to say I hired the other guy. So the moral of the story it's not about being unemployed, it's about coming off as lazy and un-motivated. I am sure your Church needs some patches/upgrades, DO IT! Senior center needs help? Yep! Technet videos/articles are free! at least tell me you checked out the latest service packs for Windows 7.

So legally you don't have to say a thing. But you had better.

Daniel333

genXrcist wrote: »

I don't hold it against anyone for taking free government money but none of us should feel justified in doing it as that leads down the road of entitlement.

If I see one more person with an iPhone and food stamps/EBT... NOT an isolated incident here in San Francisco bay area. Something I see weekly. SAW TODAY!

I got buddies making $40k+ (this doesn't even count what tips he doesn't declare) at the Olive Garden and they are hiring! So I can get pretty harsh on people. "I don't want to be a waiter". It's honest work. I loved the cash I made as a waiter. At 18 I was averaging $20+/hour. That pays rent, car and leaves you money to spare! (plus free food!).

erpadmin

genXrcist wrote: »

The only way someone "pays" into UI is with the understanding that the employer, who actually pays the UI, would pay the employee those funds instead of paying the UI premium. This is not a given nor a guarantee.

But, since the employer is actually paying the UI premium then in a sense the employee is still getting something for nothing. Private assistance if you will forced by the hand of Big Government.

All this is moot though as UI has been largely bankrupt Unemployment Insurance Buckles After Years of Underfunding - ProPublica for sometime and continues to pay out only because Congress passed legislation to fund it with money we don't have. That indeed then does make it welfare.

As for the higher salary and higher expenses, they don't have to go hand in hand. Too many people living at the brink of what they're earning (and more if they use Credit Cards) and then are in a panic about how to pay for their lifestyle when they lose their job.

Either live well below your means or make your means high enough to pay for your lifestyle. If one makes $100K/$45K per year they might want to consider living a $50K/$25K lifestyle so they can save for the inevitable rainy day. When I said 6 mos of bills earlier I was only referring to keeping a roof over your head(mortgage/heat/elec), clothes on your back, food on the table. These are survival expenses and everything else can go in the crapper if need be.

All of this can be avoided though with thoughtful planning and living well below your means. And this is exactly the sort of trait I want in an employee if I was hiring.

I do have reserves...as I said earlier, I don't plan on being unemployed for more than a month, if necessary, even if I had to take a JOAT job, but really, that's not the issue.

I find it cute and laughable at all of this though. If nothing else, this should discussion should only serve those who find themselves unemployed to act accordingly, and to shut up about vacations they may have had in unemployment. Which is a good idea anyhow....I find it amazing how people get suckered into a false sense of security during an interview. My last interview before I was hired in, I was talking about reading up on W2K servers, learning about XP...and knowing what PeopleSoft was because I had installed SAP clients at the job I got 9/11ed on.

All I can do is reiterate that being unemployed, while a bad deal, is not the end of the world. My payroll taxes and ~100 a year DO contribute to UI as well as the taxes/premium the employer pays.

Keep your chin up and keep it strong in case you get jabbed.

N2IT

Turgon wrote: »

in law no. In life yes. Stay employed.

Turgon +1

People who say very little but express their point are generally very knowledgable.

NOC-Ninja

I was unemployed for 7 months before. I applied everyday for a job and i had lots of interview but I couldn't get hired. I was laid off due the to the corporation taking a hit from recession. I just didn't employed for a job but any electronics or computer jobs from tech and engineer. I was a validation engineer and i couldnt find a job. But before I got laid off, I was studying for networking. I was studying for CCNA and CWNA.

That sucks though if that's the case today.... Its a tough economy for the professionals that has a degree.. I can just imagine how tough it is if your still in school and doesnt have a degree or years of experience.

za3bour

Man taking vacation while unemployed !.... and he had the courage to say it in an interview.

tpatt100

genXrcist wrote: »

The only way someone "pays" into UI is with the understanding that the employer, who actually pays the UI, would pay the employee those funds instead of paying the UI premium. This is not a given nor a guarantee.

But, since the employer is actually paying the UI premium then in a sense the employee is still getting something for nothing. Private assistance if you will forced by the hand of Big Government.

All this is moot though as UI has been largely bankrupt Unemployment Insurance Buckles After Years of Underfunding - ProPublica for sometime and continues to pay out only because Congress passed legislation to fund it with money we don't have. That indeed then does make it welfare.

As for the higher salary and higher expenses, they don't have to go hand in hand. Too many people living at the brink of what they're earning (and more if they use Credit Cards) and then are in a panic about how to pay for their lifestyle when they lose their job.

Either live well below your means or make your means high enough to pay for your lifestyle. If one makes $100K/$45K per year they might want to consider living a $50K/$25K lifestyle so they can save for the inevitable rainy day. When I said 6 mos of bills earlier I was only referring to keeping a roof over your head(mortgage/heat/elec), clothes on your back, food on the table. These are survival expenses and everything else can go in the crapper if need be.

All of this can be avoided though with thoughtful planning and living well below your means. And this is exactly the sort of trait I want in an employee if I was hiring.

Have you actually read any government reports about the economy? Even if every unemployed person were to spend every waking moment looking for a job, there are not enough jobs for people. Higher unemployment causes the ripple effect that impacts everybody, less people working less money moving its just natural.

And how many of the employed work for the government as an employee or contractor? If they worked for a private company they would have all been laid off a long time ago. That was the irony I noticed working in government contracting since everybody seemed to be a "fiscal conservative" lol.

And the people making 100-45K should save more, but it then causes even less money to move which means more people lose jobs. Consumer confidence with increased spending is what causes companies to have an increased confidence to hire more people. That bracket makes up a big portion of consumer spending. Higher income people save more naturally because they have more income to save. Lower income brackets spend most of their income due to cost of living costs take up most of their paychecks.

Turgon

tpatt100 wrote: »

Have you actually read any government reports about the economy? Even if every unemployed person were to spend every waking moment looking for a job, there are not enough jobs for people. Higher unemployment causes the ripple effect that impacts everybody, less people working less money moving its just natural.

And how many of the employed work for the government as an employee or contractor? If they worked for a private company they would have all been laid off a long time ago. That was the irony I noticed working in government contracting since everybody seemed to be a "fiscal conservative" lol.

And the people making 100-45K should save more, but it then causes even less money to move which means more people lose jobs. Consumer confidence with increased spending is what causes companies to have an increased confidence to hire more people. That bracket makes up a big portion of consumer spending. Higher income people save more naturally because they have more income to save. Lower income brackets spend most of their income due to cost of living costs take up most of their paychecks.

Until the private sector is in a position to absorb significantly more people, into the public sector they will go. People need jobs, add to which for many people working in the public sector who are sick of it and want out, the private sector wont touch them with a bargepole.

tpatt100

Turgon wrote: »

Until the private sector is in a position to absorb significantly more people, into the public sector they will go. People need jobs, add to which for many people working in the public sector who are sick of it and want out, the private sector wont touch them with a bargepole.

But the public sector is supported by the private sector through tax revenue. Not enough tax revenue to support the public sector, has been for a long time. Well actually its Medicaid and defense spending, but anyways. I just bang my head on the desk with the fiscal conservatives I would work with who demanded government spending cuts and work in the government sector and look down their nose at the unemployed in the private sector.

Turgon

tpatt100 wrote: »

But the public sector is supported by the private sector through tax revenue. Not enough tax revenue to support the public sector, has been for a long time. Well actually its Medicaid and defense spending, but anyways. I just bang my head on the desk with the fiscal conservatives I would work with who demanded government spending cuts and work in the government sector and look down their nose at the unemployed in the private sector.

Yes it is, although a public sector is necessary IMO. For me one problem is the bloat in management layers with people hanging on. We have seen this creep into the private sector as well. For the public sector this increases the cost, for the private sector this makes it uncompetitive. Investment that would otherwise go into technology, technical employees, technical training and technocrats has been siphoned into white collar areas.

As for people looking down at the unemployed, it can happen to anyone. I expect we will see more organisations merging both private and public. As that happens there will be double bloat and the knife will fall. Expect to see many non technical and semi technical managers hitting the job boards over the next 5 years with more or less the same skills.

It's not a good look for those who have overextended.