Live data from Hacker News

The unemployed will not be considered

huffingtonpost.com

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#41
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

I probably wouldn't have used a pic of a befuddled looking black guy as the sole picture for an article about the unemployed.

Again, why? Blacks are technically just as likely to be unemployed as whites.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#42

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.

We value honesty and telling the truth because deception and lying are commonly considered to be bad things.

When people honestly tell us the truth that they will not entertain applications for employment from those currently unemployed, we express outrage because that is just {dickish,unconscionable,idiotic}.

If it makes you feel better, I give them full credit for being honest about their moral bankruptcy.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#43

My reaction to this is that it's not so much "unconscionable" as mind-numbingly stupid. Yeah, I agree that it's unfair to those of us who are looking for work (I was myself most recently) but from the perspective of those doing the hiring this seems like a weird sort of overcautiousness. Some of the most intelligent, accomplished, and qualified people I know have found themselves unemployed at some point in the last…

It is mind-numbingly stupid, because there wasn't much thinking involved in coming up with the policy. The companies who post this policy are simply codifying what individual resume screeners have done for eons now.

People who screen resumes tend to assume that you are unemployed because of one or more other undesirable traits you have, like a tendency to be irresponsible or violent and antisocial. This assumption is a mix of broken societal wisdom and an association fallacy. FWIW, there's another fallacy committed when they themselves become unemployed; everyone else unemployed is a antisocial lunatic, but they are a good person who has simply fallen on rough times -- total cognitive dissonance, but they don't notice, even when it is pointed out to them.

It is not necessarily true that a company that is employing this philosophy is necessarily cutting out the best from it's hiring pool; but the inverse isn't necessarily true either. My suspicion is that the mean quality of the unemployed applicants to a company might be slightly worse than the employed applicants, but not enough so to represent anything significant.

What I can more confidently say is true is that most companies, and for that matter most individuals, haven't thought about this at all. What we do right now is the default, and they haven't yet been fired for relying on it, nor have they been rewarded for not doing so. Until they are, nothing will change.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#44
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

I probably wouldn't have used a pic of a befuddled looking black guy as the sole picture for an article about the unemployed.

Why? We strive for equality among all races, but it's wrong for a black person to be portraying a less than ideal situation?

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#45
post #38

If you needed further evidence, this suggests that there are ridiculous inefficiencies in matching up labor and jobs that you could make money solving. (In this case, caused by the dating site conundrum: there are more men then women, causing men to send out lots of messages without much thought, causing women to be very choosy in responding to messages, causing frustrated men to send more messages, causing women to…

If you needed further evidence, this suggests that there are ridiculous inefficiencies in matching up labor and jobs that you could make money solving.

There are ridiculous inefficiencies, but they exist do to some completely screwed up assumptions people make, or that they just blindly follow out of deference to common wisdom.

In order for someone to make money solving these problems, they'd need to convince the parties involved that their assumptions are incorrect, and that they need to use a new approach to hiring. For instance, a hiring manager who believes that the clerk they are seeking must have a bachelors degree, n+ years of experience, and whatever else. Why; because this person has a large number of assumptions they are working off of, and each of these requirements is a manifestation of some subset of those assumptions. And, in the case of the companies tied to this article, they have to already be employed.

Changing these assumptions is amazingly hard to do, because their existence represents a cultural problem, not a knowledge problem. This would be like a company trying to make money solving racism when most everyone in society is a racist. It is incredibly hard to do; people will go bankrupt rather than give up what they've believed all their lives.

I'm reminded a number of months ago of a post you made in reply to one of mine where you discussed the cultural implications of quitting a permanent salaryman position in Japan; you pointed out that anyone who does this will likely never find themselves as more than a contractor ever again. This is really just a different manifestation of the same basic cultural bias; if you are unemployed, our cultural mores dictate that this should reflect badly upon you. If there is a solution to this problem here, I think it would have to look similar to the solution to Japan's bias toward unemployed salarymen.

But, I could be wrong about this; in fact, I'd like to be wrong. It would provide me additional faith in the resiliency of humanity. I just can't see us being that ruthlessly introspective without something far more horrible than high unemployment to motivate us.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#46

I'm surprised that you can even compel someone to produce this information in an interview setting, considering some other things that are not legal to ask ("how much do you weigh, how tall are you . . .").

You're surprised that you can ask for someone's work history in an interview setting?

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#47
post #27
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…

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.

Sure - employers pad out job openings a bit - but man, people will shotgun-apply for jobs that they are very clearly, to anyone reading the job description, by no stretch of the imagination qualified for. I'm not talking about ridiculous requirements like more years with a technology than the tech has existed, but when you say things like "SENIOR SYSTEMS MANAGER" and "MUST have at last 8 years professional experience" and "MUST have an expert level of knowledge of ProductX"

And the applicants come in, just out of university, never had a job, have never even heard of ProductX, and have no experience........ what are you to do? I mean, if they put in a good cover letter explaining that they recognize that they don't seem to match the qualifications, but explaining why they want a shot at an interview, or something like that, fine.... but they don't.

They hit monster.com or whatever, look for "sysadmin" or "IT" anywhere in the text and then spam out resumes with complete disregard for the requirements.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#48
post #47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure - employers pad out job openings a bit - but man, people will shotgun-apply for jobs that they are very clearly, to anyone reading the job description, by no stretch of the imagination qualified for. I'm not talking about ridiculous requirements like more years with a technology than the tech has existed, but when you say things like "SENIOR SYSTEMS MANAGER" and "MUST have at last 8 years professional experience…

It works the other way too. On a local portal, I get at least one php coder position offer a month, even though I don't do any web stuff (I'm a voip devops, let's say).

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#49
Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month?

Sending out 300 resumés in a month is the wrong strategy, as it shows you don't care about the posting. If you are willing to invest that little effort, you are basically playing a lottery against all the other people doing the same thing. You are far better off being selective and persistant. If instead of sending out 75 resumes a week, you spend a concerted effort on applying to a couple postings - and doing more than just sending your resume, I'm sure you'll have better results.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#50
post #43

My reaction to this is that it's not so much "unconscionable" as mind-numbingly stupid. Yeah, I agree that it's unfair to those of us who are looking for work (I was myself most recently) but from the perspective of those doing the hiring this seems like a weird sort of overcautiousness. Some of the most intelligent, accomplished, and qualified people I know have found themselves unemployed at some point in the last…

It is mind-numbingly stupid, because there wasn't much thinking involved in coming up with the policy. The companies who post this policy are simply codifying what individual resume screeners have done for eons now. People who screen resumes tend to assume that you are unemployed because of one or more other undesirable traits you have, like a tendency to be irresponsible or violent and antisocial. This assumption is…

"haven't thought about this at all."

If you look at most discussions about how employers weed out prospective employees, and about how employees weed out prospective employers, there isn't much careful thinking involved at all. Even though it is an important decision for both parties, and time deliberately thinking about it is time well-spent, stupid heuristics are usually used.

Post reply on HN