Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unemployed will not be considered

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#21

Post by dasil003 »

enjo wrote: post #16
tibbon wrote: post #12

I wonder how they look at people that were starting their own company, freelancing, etc...? When I'm not in the fulltime employ of one company, I'm generally working on my own projects, freelancing, consulting, etc. My resume never looks to have blank sections even if I get laid off and the income keeps flowing that way too. But what does it mean to be employed? Receiving a paycheck? RMS doesn't take a paycheck from…

I get where they are coming from. I was heavily involved in a big hiring spree shortly after the telecom implosion in Dallas. The sheer volume of resumes that we received was staggering. We'd have literally 100's of resumes within an hour of posting a job ad. Maybe 2% of those actually had anything resembling the qualifications we we're looking for (and had clearly spelled out in the ad). It really did seem like folk…

Isn't filtering resumé buckshot sort of HR's core competency though?

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#22

Post by natrius »

tibbon wrote: post #11
joezydeco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but it sounds lazy. How hard is it to check the work chronology and just bong any resume that doesn't look like it would be anywhere near a good fit? It's not like H/R people are overworked filling hundreds of positions in their companies at the moment.

Right on. Google's got a rather good system for automatically sorting and filtering applicants before they ever cross an HR Manager's desk. Why not have a system like this if you're so overwhelmed in hiring?

That costs money. This strategy is free.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#23

Post by [deleted] »

enjo wrote: post #17
[deleted] wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

At the risk of turning this into a political argument... your characterization of the left is simply untrue. A 'leftist' (whatever that means) would most likely view business with a measure of caution, preferring a regulatory power keeping a careful (but generally distant) watch over those business practices. Very few on 'the left' are full bore socialists, and even fewer are anti-commerce.

[deleted]

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#24

Post by rajat »

tibbon wrote: post #11
joezydeco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but it sounds lazy. How hard is it to check the work chronology and just bong any resume that doesn't look like it would be anywhere near a good fit? It's not like H/R people are overworked filling hundreds of positions in their companies at the moment.

Right on. Google's got a rather good system for automatically sorting and filtering applicants before they ever cross an HR Manager's desk. Why not have a system like this if you're so overwhelmed in hiring?

Because it would take work and time to put such a system in place, and they are overwhelmed right now. Plus, it would certainly cost money which is probably not in budgets that have been cut to the bone.

There's also a cost/benefit analysis. Having gone through a few hundred such applications, they have probably come to the conclusion that the likelihood of finding a gem is too low to be worth the effort. If you are employed, you are likely only sending out resumes if it's a very good fit; therefore, from the hiring HR guy's point of view, there's a lot of value in that self-selection.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#25

Post by jgrahamc »

dasil003 wrote: post #21
enjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where they are coming from. I was heavily involved in a big hiring spree shortly after the telecom implosion in Dallas. The sheer volume of resumes that we received was staggering. We'd have literally 100's of resumes within an hour of posting a job ad. Maybe 2% of those actually had anything resembling the qualifications we we're looking for (and had clearly spelled out in the ad). It really did seem like folk…

Isn't filtering resumé buckshot sort of HR's core competency though?

My experience is that HR doesn't have a core competency.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#27

Post by pyre »

enjo wrote: post #16
tibbon wrote: post #12

I wonder how they look at people that were starting their own company, freelancing, etc...? When I'm not in the fulltime employ of one company, I'm generally working on my own projects, freelancing, consulting, etc. My resume never looks to have blank sections even if I get laid off and the income keeps flowing that way too. But what does it mean to be employed? Receiving a paycheck? RMS doesn't take a paycheck from…

I get where they are coming from. I was heavily involved in a big hiring spree shortly after the telecom implosion in Dallas. The sheer volume of resumes that we received was staggering. We'd have literally 100's of resumes within an hour of posting a job ad. Maybe 2% of those actually had anything resembling the qualifications we we're looking for (and had clearly spelled out in the ad). It really did seem like folk…

One issue is that lots of job ads are really poorly worded or have shoot-for-the-moon requirements that are not really requirements. There are plenty of cases where the most qualified person for the job may be someone that doesn't meet most of the requirements in the posting. Though this is more of a commentary on the state of affairs with respect to the composition of job postings.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#28

Post by paulgb »

natrius wrote: post #22
tibbon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right on. Google's got a rather good system for automatically sorting and filtering applicants before they ever cross an HR Manager's desk. Why not have a system like this if you're so overwhelmed in hiring?

That costs money. This strategy is free.

True, though it could cost down the line in terms of overlooking a good (but unemployed) candidate.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#30

Post by stretchwithme »

We value honesty and telling the truth. And when people do, we express outrage.

Unemployed people also have limited resources and cannot apply for every job. Isn't it better to know you won't be considered instead of wasting your time trying to get through invisible filters?

Employers employ all sorts of arbitrary mechanisms to narrow their choices. And so do you, most likely, when you make your economic decisions.

Post reply on HN