For once I agree with Tallest. Let's say I have a professional position to fill in my firm. Should I choose a mom who has a college degree but has been out of the work force raising children for several years, or someone who does not have a degree but has been steadily working? I would choose the one who can do the job best.
There are too few employers who think the way you do. It's simpler to just use a check off list; credentialism is so much easier than actually evaluating a potential employee's ability to do a job.
I'm just saying there are reasons someone might be out of the workforce for an extended time other than being unable to find a job. It also really depends on the type of job that is being applied for. Certainly a position in IT would require up to date computer skills however a job in something like public relations might focus more on language and personality characteristics.
One reason someone might be "out of the workforce" would be trying to start up and run your own business, and it doesn't work out for whatever reasons.
Just because they say that they won't discriminate doesn't mean that they won't. People in HR have a mindset that will be difficult to break. After all, if YOU were given a choice between someone who's employed vs someone who hasn't worked for a few years, who would YOU choose?
qualification: if both candidates qualify for the job.
I don't consider "employment status" as a criteria to begin with, period. I look for qualifications and a good fit, first and foremost.
That said, if both qualified I would absolutely lean toward hiring the person qualified but unemployed. Why? Well....
One, it brings relief to someone qualified and needing income. Why pass over someone who needs a job to give it to someone who already has one?? It makes no sense at all without a very good reason!
Two, I'm not poaching someone from a potentially critical position at another company "just because" and especially if I have a perfectly good candidate really needing the position, and....
Three, I'd rather hire someone who actually wants and needs the position. Someone who I might depend on to be more appreciative and loyal? It sure isn't that person jumping ship from a perfectly good job, now is it.
Of course, I would first double check qualifications to see that I'm getting the best overall fit. But I'm against being a "home wrecker" in practice as a businessman...
I create companies that are loyal to their employees, and nurture employee loyalty as well. I'm really not interested in dealing with a completely mercenary workforce.
I don't consider "employment status" as a criteria to begin with, period. I look for qualifications and a good fit, first and foremost.
That said, if both qualified I would absolutely lean toward hiring the person qualified but unemployed. Why? Well....
One, it brings relief to someone qualified and needing income. Why pass over someone who needs a job to give it to someone who already has one?? It makes no sense at all without a very good reason!
Two, I'm not poaching someone from a potentially critical position at another company "just because" and especially if I have a perfectly good candidate really needing the position, and....
Three, I'd rather hire someone who actually wants and needs the position. Someone who I might depend on to be more appreciative and loyal? It sure isn't that person jumping ship from a perfectly good job, now is it.
Of course, I would first double check qualifications to see that I'm getting the best overall fit. But I'm against being a "home wrecker" in practice as a businessman...
I create companies that are loyal to their employees, and nurture employee loyalty as well. I'm really not interested in dealing with a completely mercenary workforce.
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking we only have mercenary forces now. That's why Fortune 500 will layoff thousands at a time without a blink of an eye and employees wouldn't think twice about taking a job at your competitor's business.
That's also why the 20 somethings now all have spotty employment histories where they don't stay too long at any one place. It's the new world order. Get use to it. In another generation, this will be codified into our culture.
It like me hating HipHop. To me it's not music. Too bad because it's the sound of times. Get use to it.
Well, temper that with the fact that I can likely hire the unemployed candidate for less money. If I get similar interview results from my team, I'll look next at how much each one will cost me, and when they'll be available.
Well, and there's a company I wouldn't pin my loyalties on. psh!
I'm seeing such screwed up priorities in this thread, I'm pretty sure not many of you commenting here have actually built and run companies before.
I would hire the unemployed person if they qualified, were a good fit, brought something extra, and I'd pay them according to the value they bring to the company. Every position needs a range, and you vary it based on their competency, experience and skill. Give them room to grow, make it worthwhile to both sides... the "boss" that hires me 'on the cheap' by leveraging my desperation? I'm going to be looking elsewhere sooner than later....
Ethics matter. Treating other human beings with dignity matters. Good companies thrive because of that, not in spite of it. Just saying.
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking we only have mercenary forces now. That's why Fortune 500 will layoff thousands at a time without a blink of an eye and employees wouldn't think twice about taking a job at your competitor's business.
That's also why the 20 somethings now all have spotty employment histories where they don't stay too long at any one place. It's the new world order. Get use to it. In another generation, this will be codified into our culture.
It like me hating HipHop. To me it's not music. Too bad because it's the sound of times. Get use to it.
The times, they are a changing....
It's a very "American" perspective.
Are you well traveled? I've spent half my adult life living abroad (12 years of it in Tokyo, where I built and ran two different companies). I can say with assurance that the attitude toward labor is quite different elsewhere. The US is definitely having a negative effect on that culture in some places, but for the most part, labor is viewed quite differently. Much more value is placed in the worker, and the worker provides much greater loyalty (in part because conditionally, why would they want to job hop? They've got a good situation).
This isn't remotely "universal" of course, just not as twisted as the internal "world view" of USA...
Well, and there's a company I wouldn't pin my loyalties on. psh!
I'm seeing such screwed up priorities in this thread, I'm pretty sure not many of you commenting here have actually built and run companies before.
I would hire the unemployed person if they qualified, were a good fit, brought something extra, and I'd pay them according to the value they bring to the company. Every position needs a range, and you vary it based on their competency, experience and skill. Give them room to grow, make it worthwhile to both sides... the "boss" that hires me 'on the cheap' by leveraging my desperation? I'm going to be looking elsewhere sooner than later....
Ethics matter. Treating other human beings with dignity matters. Good companies thrive because of that, not in spite of it. Just saying.
Wait, are you telling me that you hire employees and don't negotiate on salary? Are you saying that you just took whatever offer your current employer made?
A position has a salary band. In the interview process, I try to get an idea of salary requirements from the candidate. An employed candidate is going to come in MUCH higher than an unemployed candidate. So, I compare salary requirements with the pay band, and make an offer. I am fair, but I'm not going to speculate on what a given candidate would be asking for if they currently held this position with a competitor. On the other side, I'm not going to be successful in hiring anyone if they don't feel they are being fairly compensated.
If I get a bargain on an employee, then they hit it out of the park, I get to make them happy by raising their competitive salary through promotions or corrective merit increases.
Are you well traveled? I've spent half my adult life living abroad (12 years of it in Tokyo, where I built and ran two different companies). I can say with assurance that the attitude toward labor is quite different elsewhere. The US is definitely having a negative effect on that culture in some places, but for the most part, labor is viewed quite differently. Much more value is placed in the worker, and the worker provides much greater loyalty (in part because conditionally, why would they want to job hop? They've got a good situation).
This isn't remotely "universal" of course, just not as twisted as the internal "world view" of USA...
You're right that this is mostly an American trend but I can see it spreading elsewhere such as Spain where most of the young are unemployed and probably not loyal to the companies that wouldn't hire them when they were desperate.
I was referring to the U.S. as this thread is about America and Obama's plan to jumpstart the economy and probably should have been more precise in saying a new American order, but who uses those terms anyway?
Training. That is a myth. I speak as a Mechanical Engineering/Computer Science double B.S. who is a NeXT/Apple alumnus who never saw a goddamn ounce of `training.'
Though the corporation yearly cited my value to the company including world-class training, there was never a single bit of it.
Professional Services had me training new hires to duplicate how I manage clients via the phone, email and processing their issues. Coming from Engineering they were thrilled to have me.
Engineering didn't bring me up to speed on processes. They showed how they manage their projects and assigned you what they wanted you to work on.
Training includes advanced education, programming seminars, time to invest in your programming skills, etc.
That is all on your own. They offer it and always have. It's just a matter of fitting it into your workflow, already time dedicated to other projects.
So no, Training is myth at every corporation I've worked in.
Education is vital to landing the job, period.
Seeing trends on skills requested are vital in targeting what you need to get noticed and expected to show results. Ultimately, training becomes `time dedicated to independent learning' outside of work that you later add to your resume.
Once inside the Emerald City your ability to network and work with your peers is what cements your tenure.
I would hire a gay latino/black/asian woman cross so I could fulfill my diversity requirements. What better way to build an economy than to build companies with a priority on diversity rather than qualifications?
A qualified person of any of the persuasions you mentioned would tell you to stuff it. He/she would rather get a job based on merit rather than your perception of them being *diverse*.
Big companies use policies and procedures everywhere, as others have said, they even use software to screen resumes. It's the only way to manage the sheer volume.
But a small businessman with 5 employees will look you in the eye and actually engage his brain, taking the whole picture in to account. Long term unemployed who are nevertheless conscientious and decent people, but have just fallen on hard times, their best bet is to apply for work at a small company.
I think one problem these days is, a lot of small companies keep getting bought up by the big companies.
What's the point of this pledge for any company that relies heavily on technical interviews during the hiring process. If someone can program really well, they will crush the interview regardless of whether they were previously employed. If the candidate clearly cannot program, he wouldn't get hired even if the company were blind to the candidate's employment history.
Any word on their pledge to hire applicants that are 30 and older? No? Yeah, didn't think. We old timers just don't fit that young, hip corporate image you're trying to sell.
"please hire the people that have been living off unemployment for 99 weeks because that evil congress won't let me keep printing up money to extended those benefits indefinitely, or at least until the next election"
Time to get the government out of the business of entitlements, so people will not be incentivized to turn to the government for handouts... Then you would have more people remaining in the workforce and less "long-term unemployed".
Time to get the government out of the business of entitlements, so people will not be incentivized to turn to the government for handouts... Then you would have more people remaining in the workforce and less "long-term unemployed".
Please tell us where this secret document is that says the majority of long term unemployed are in that condition by choice. Also, please share with us the giant list of job openings with actual living wages that will put all those unemployed to work.
Ah, no you see, you can't. Despite a major recovery in profitability for many industries, opening up hiring would create a demand by the employers thus driving up wages. Can't have that now, can we. It would undo all the work since the Reagan administration to drive down wages, destroy the middle class and bring us back to the 1910s.
A qualified person of any of the persuasions you mentioned would tell you to stuff it. He/she would rather get a job based on merit rather than your perception of them being *diverse*.
See, he’s mocking the common corporate (and school) policy of having a diversity quota, forgoing better candidates because of laws, etc.
Comments
For everyone else, lighten up. Am I the only one that took this as tongue in cheek?
For once I agree with Tallest. Let's say I have a professional position to fill in my firm. Should I choose a mom who has a college degree but has been out of the work force raising children for several years, or someone who does not have a degree but has been steadily working? I would choose the one who can do the job best.
There are too few employers who think the way you do. It's simpler to just use a check off list; credentialism is so much easier than actually evaluating a potential employee's ability to do a job.
I'm just saying there are reasons someone might be out of the workforce for an extended time other than being unable to find a job. It also really depends on the type of job that is being applied for. Certainly a position in IT would require up to date computer skills however a job in something like public relations might focus more on language and personality characteristics.
One reason someone might be "out of the workforce" would be trying to start up and run your own business, and it doesn't work out for whatever reasons.
Just because they say that they won't discriminate doesn't mean that they won't. People in HR have a mindset that will be difficult to break. After all, if YOU were given a choice between someone who's employed vs someone who hasn't worked for a few years, who would YOU choose?
qualification: if both candidates qualify for the job.
I don't consider "employment status" as a criteria to begin with, period. I look for qualifications and a good fit, first and foremost.
That said, if both qualified I would absolutely lean toward hiring the person qualified but unemployed. Why? Well....
One, it brings relief to someone qualified and needing income. Why pass over someone who needs a job to give it to someone who already has one?? It makes no sense at all without a very good reason!
Two, I'm not poaching someone from a potentially critical position at another company "just because" and especially if I have a perfectly good candidate really needing the position, and....
Three, I'd rather hire someone who actually wants and needs the position. Someone who I might depend on to be more appreciative and loyal? It sure isn't that person jumping ship from a perfectly good job, now is it.
Of course, I would first double check qualifications to see that I'm getting the best overall fit. But I'm against being a "home wrecker" in practice as a businessman...
I create companies that are loyal to their employees, and nurture employee loyalty as well. I'm really not interested in dealing with a completely mercenary workforce.
The one who can do the best job is almost always the person who's currently employed and not someone with rusty skills.
I've been running companies for over 25 years. That statement of yours is absolute hogwash born of ignorance. Sorry, I just had to say it.
I don't consider "employment status" as a criteria to begin with, period. I look for qualifications and a good fit, first and foremost.
That said, if both qualified I would absolutely lean toward hiring the person qualified but unemployed. Why? Well....
One, it brings relief to someone qualified and needing income. Why pass over someone who needs a job to give it to someone who already has one?? It makes no sense at all without a very good reason!
Two, I'm not poaching someone from a potentially critical position at another company "just because" and especially if I have a perfectly good candidate really needing the position, and....
Three, I'd rather hire someone who actually wants and needs the position. Someone who I might depend on to be more appreciative and loyal? It sure isn't that person jumping ship from a perfectly good job, now is it.
Of course, I would first double check qualifications to see that I'm getting the best overall fit. But I'm against being a "home wrecker" in practice as a businessman...
I create companies that are loyal to their employees, and nurture employee loyalty as well. I'm really not interested in dealing with a completely mercenary workforce.
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking we only have mercenary forces now. That's why Fortune 500 will layoff thousands at a time without a blink of an eye and employees wouldn't think twice about taking a job at your competitor's business.
That's also why the 20 somethings now all have spotty employment histories where they don't stay too long at any one place. It's the new world order. Get use to it. In another generation, this will be codified into our culture.
It like me hating HipHop. To me it's not music. Too bad because it's the sound of times. Get use to it.
The times, they are a changing....
Well, temper that with the fact that I can likely hire the unemployed candidate for less money. If I get similar interview results from my team, I'll look next at how much each one will cost me, and when they'll be available.
Well, and there's a company I wouldn't pin my loyalties on. psh!
I'm seeing such screwed up priorities in this thread, I'm pretty sure not many of you commenting here have actually built and run companies before.
I would hire the unemployed person if they qualified, were a good fit, brought something extra, and I'd pay them according to the value they bring to the company. Every position needs a range, and you vary it based on their competency, experience and skill. Give them room to grow, make it worthwhile to both sides... the "boss" that hires me 'on the cheap' by leveraging my desperation? I'm going to be looking elsewhere sooner than later....
Ethics matter. Treating other human beings with dignity matters. Good companies thrive because of that, not in spite of it. Just saying.
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking we only have mercenary forces now. That's why Fortune 500 will layoff thousands at a time without a blink of an eye and employees wouldn't think twice about taking a job at your competitor's business.
That's also why the 20 somethings now all have spotty employment histories where they don't stay too long at any one place. It's the new world order. Get use to it. In another generation, this will be codified into our culture.
It like me hating HipHop. To me it's not music. Too bad because it's the sound of times. Get use to it.
The times, they are a changing....
It's a very "American" perspective.
Are you well traveled? I've spent half my adult life living abroad (12 years of it in Tokyo, where I built and ran two different companies). I can say with assurance that the attitude toward labor is quite different elsewhere. The US is definitely having a negative effect on that culture in some places, but for the most part, labor is viewed quite differently. Much more value is placed in the worker, and the worker provides much greater loyalty (in part because conditionally, why would they want to job hop? They've got a good situation).
This isn't remotely "universal" of course, just not as twisted as the internal "world view" of USA...
Well, and there's a company I wouldn't pin my loyalties on. psh!
I'm seeing such screwed up priorities in this thread, I'm pretty sure not many of you commenting here have actually built and run companies before.
I would hire the unemployed person if they qualified, were a good fit, brought something extra, and I'd pay them according to the value they bring to the company. Every position needs a range, and you vary it based on their competency, experience and skill. Give them room to grow, make it worthwhile to both sides... the "boss" that hires me 'on the cheap' by leveraging my desperation? I'm going to be looking elsewhere sooner than later....
Ethics matter. Treating other human beings with dignity matters. Good companies thrive because of that, not in spite of it. Just saying.
Wait, are you telling me that you hire employees and don't negotiate on salary? Are you saying that you just took whatever offer your current employer made?
A position has a salary band. In the interview process, I try to get an idea of salary requirements from the candidate. An employed candidate is going to come in MUCH higher than an unemployed candidate. So, I compare salary requirements with the pay band, and make an offer. I am fair, but I'm not going to speculate on what a given candidate would be asking for if they currently held this position with a competitor. On the other side, I'm not going to be successful in hiring anyone if they don't feel they are being fairly compensated.
If I get a bargain on an employee, then they hit it out of the park, I get to make them happy by raising their competitive salary through promotions or corrective merit increases.
It's a very "American" perspective.
Are you well traveled? I've spent half my adult life living abroad (12 years of it in Tokyo, where I built and ran two different companies). I can say with assurance that the attitude toward labor is quite different elsewhere. The US is definitely having a negative effect on that culture in some places, but for the most part, labor is viewed quite differently. Much more value is placed in the worker, and the worker provides much greater loyalty (in part because conditionally, why would they want to job hop? They've got a good situation).
This isn't remotely "universal" of course, just not as twisted as the internal "world view" of USA...
You're right that this is mostly an American trend but I can see it spreading elsewhere such as Spain where most of the young are unemployed and probably not loyal to the companies that wouldn't hire them when they were desperate.
I was referring to the U.S. as this thread is about America and Obama's plan to jumpstart the economy and probably should have been more precise in saying a new American order, but who uses those terms anyway?
Though the corporation yearly cited my value to the company including world-class training, there was never a single bit of it.
Professional Services had me training new hires to duplicate how I manage clients via the phone, email and processing their issues. Coming from Engineering they were thrilled to have me.
Engineering didn't bring me up to speed on processes. They showed how they manage their projects and assigned you what they wanted you to work on.
Training includes advanced education, programming seminars, time to invest in your programming skills, etc.
That is all on your own. They offer it and always have. It's just a matter of fitting it into your workflow, already time dedicated to other projects.
So no, Training is myth at every corporation I've worked in.
Education is vital to landing the job, period.
Seeing trends on skills requested are vital in targeting what you need to get noticed and expected to show results. Ultimately, training becomes `time dedicated to independent learning' outside of work that you later add to your resume.
Once inside the Emerald City your ability to network and work with your peers is what cements your tenure.
I would hire a gay latino/black/asian woman cross so I could fulfill my diversity requirements. What better way to build an economy than to build companies with a priority on diversity rather than qualifications?
A qualified person of any of the persuasions you mentioned would tell you to stuff it. He/she would rather get a job based on merit rather than your perception of them being *diverse*.
Big companies use policies and procedures everywhere, as others have said, they even use software to screen resumes. It's the only way to manage the sheer volume.
But a small businessman with 5 employees will look you in the eye and actually engage his brain, taking the whole picture in to account. Long term unemployed who are nevertheless conscientious and decent people, but have just fallen on hard times, their best bet is to apply for work at a small company.
I think one problem these days is, a lot of small companies keep getting bought up by the big companies.
What's the point of this pledge for any company that relies heavily on technical interviews during the hiring process. If someone can program really well, they will crush the interview regardless of whether they were previously employed. If the candidate clearly cannot program, he wouldn't get hired even if the company were blind to the candidate's employment history.
Any word on their pledge to hire applicants that are 30 and older? No? Yeah, didn't think. We old timers just don't fit that young, hip corporate image you're trying to sell.
Time to get the government out of the business of entitlements, so people will not be incentivized to turn to the government for handouts... Then you would have more people remaining in the workforce and less "long-term unemployed".
Ah, no you see, you can't. Despite a major recovery in profitability for many industries, opening up hiring would create a demand by the employers thus driving up wages. Can't have that now, can we. It would undo all the work since the Reagan administration to drive down wages, destroy the middle class and bring us back to the 1910s.
See, he’s mocking the common corporate (and school) policy of having a diversity quota, forgoing better candidates because of laws, etc.