Study-Some Employers Would Rather The Unemployed NOT Take "a" Job or "downgrade"

[WhatInThe]

A recent study found many employers would rather see an unemployed person NOT take "a" job just to fill time in/on their resume contradicting earlier advice one shouldn't have gaps in their work history.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/bus...loyers-take-dim-view-to-replacing-lost/nqpfy/

On one hand this has been the unwritten practice or mindset for decades. But it is a contradiction with advice given after the 2008 economic crash.

It's a darned if you or don't take "a" job. The reality is many need a job/income,most people work for money, not fun or love of that job. Some "career" type jobs that don't require licenses, certifications etc are like this. One has to reek of success-literally because it's assumed if one is financially stable they are "successful" and will be a good or productive employee doing what ever it takes. I've seen & heard stories of many hrs looking for free unpaid internships because they feel it shows a person is seriously interested in a career but unpaid internships also benefit many businesses with free labor. And most work to live not live to work.

Also note this study was based on sending out fake resumes and not going through the entire process including interview and vetted job application. Never the less it's what I and others have found over the decades.

This is just 'a' study and it all goes back to what the applicant & employer are looking for/at here.-"a" JOB seeker or a CAREER professional.

 

[Wrigley's]

Used to be you only needed a resume for exec jobs, now McDonald's likes to see one. When you needed a resume for just about every kind of job the guideline was to fill gaps in employment with meaningful activities, not get some worthless job and stick it in there. Somewhere between resumes for exec's only, and resumes right down to the janitor and fry-cook, the guidelines went askew. One misinformed federal resume instructor (because we needed those then) got it wrong, and it rippled across the land.

 

[WhatInThe]

Used to be you only needed a resume for exec jobs, now McDonald's likes to see one. When you needed a resume for just about every kind of job the guideline was to fill gaps in employment with meaningful activities, not get some worthless job and stick it in there. Somewhere between resumes for exec's only, and resumes right down to the janitor and fry-cook, the guidelines went askew. One misinformed federal resume instructor (because we needed those then) got it wrong, and it rippled across the land.

Problem is "meaningful activities" doesn't pay rent or grocery bills. I think this is another variation of "how bad" someone wants that job or career. HRs are worried about turnover so their logic is to find someone who is "happy" at what they do and therefore be at lower risk of leaving. Not reality.

Hiring managers also like gung ho or seemingly highly motivated applicants for what in reality are not career 30 year jobs. I always found it amazing how potential employers demanded or looked for 24/7 loyal yet wouldn't pay things like overtime or holiday pay yet still demanding the loyalty of someone who has been lead to believe they'll be taken care of for life.

 

[Wrigley's]

I think you missed my point. That being; true, employers don't care about filler jobs; and whoever said you need to fill employment gaps with filler-jobs got it wrong.

But I agree 100%, "meaningful activities" doesn't pay rent or grocery bills.

 

[WhatInThe]

I think you missed my point. That being; true, employers don't care about filler jobs; and whoever said you need to fill employment gaps with filler-jobs got it wrong.

But I agree 100%, "meaningful activities" doesn't pay rent or grocery bills.

You are absolutely right about use of the resume. I too remember when it was geared for executives or management, usually an administrative job only. I understand reading a resume is easier than reading the visual clutter on a actual application or if a company wants something specific but if the employer doesn't specify or request experience, training or certification of some kind all should be in the running.

I will say in a specific scenario with an applicant working a filler job and another doing nothing yes I'm picking the burger flipper. assuming all else is similar. On the other hand if one applicant did volunteer work only one night a week as a 'meaningful activity' and another who did nothing the one night a week applicant would get my vote.

With the computerized application process the computer can also be used to set criteria and/or dump or keep an applicant in the running.

 

[Wrigley's]

There's these multiple-question things you fill out now that profile you. They replace good interviewers with good judgement, which I'm guessing are extremely rare.

I meant to say multiple-choice questionnaire.

 

[fureverywhere]

Okay seriously I've had a bunch of experience now being unemployed...bastards all of them, not that I'm bitter. One of my best fantasies is being the court appointed social worker for the last bozo who got me fired. I'd love it, the rumor was he was going through a divorce. I like to imagine appearing at his door to interview he and his wife concerning custody...and watching the little **** squirm. Of course after careful consideration she would get sole custody and generous child support.

The old thinking was it's easier to get a job while you're employed. Now they are concerned you'll give priority to first job.
Are you eligible to be rehired at your old job? If I was I wouldn't be here now would I?
Fair Credit Reporting...unemployed or not you better have good credit because they will find out.
Professional references, even for the dumbest position they might want supervisors who will commend your minimum wage performance.
They can't ask you how old you are, they can SEE how old you are.
Over-qualified, better that they hire inexperienced, they can train them the way they want for minimum wage...sucks to be you.
Not that I'm bitter.

 

[CuriousKate]

I feel your pain and agree 100% with your comments. Along the lines of Wrigley's comment about multiple-choice questions as part of the application process...these are personality tests. What a joke!! Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't! The research on these tests claim that they help employers with retention of suitable employees.....site unseen. I want to go back to the days when the process included "up close and personal" - we are not robots!

 

[WhatInThe]

There's these multiple-question things you fill out now that profile you. They replace good interviewers with good judgement, which I'm guessing are extremely rare.

I meant to say multiple-choice questionnaire.

I heard many employers can request a test that supposedly determines a specific personality type or trait. Or in this day and age of computers can set the test themselves. Sometimes it's just one question that can sink an applicant out of the hundreds asked. I was always told consistent answers but if given even a slightly different scenario or choice the same answer might not be reality.

I think HRs know applicants lie, even on those tests let alone resume and job application so that's why it so easy to get knocked out of process. They are quick to profile, yes HRs try to profile you without a full vetting or interview.

 

[Wrigley's]

I heard many employers can request a test that supposedly determines a specific personality type or trait. Or in this day and age of computers can set the test themselves. Sometimes it's just one question that can sink an applicant out of the hundreds asked. I was always told consistent answers but if given even a slightly different scenario or choice the same answer might not be reality.

I think HRs know applicants lie, even on those tests let alone resume and job application so that's why it so easy to get knocked out of process. They are quick to profile, yes HRs try to profile you without a full vetting or interview.

The questions (and the answers) were designed by some psychiatric group. When I was house-painting I hired guys as helpers on big jobs. Most of them were between jobs in their regular occupation. One of them failed one of those tests and for the life of me I can't understand why. He was a real decent kid, honest and worked hard. And it was just for a job at a pizza joint!

 

[Shalimar]

Those tests inevitably reveal more about those who designed them, than the people they are intended to screen. Hubris is systemic among both the people of my proffession, and psychiatrists.