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

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#71

Post by derefr »

azanar wrote: post #43
koeselitz wrote: post #31

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…

> 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.

For anyone interested, it's called the actor-observer bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-observer_bias

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#72

Post by nhebb »

jgrahamc wrote: post #25
dasil003 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Even though I upvoted you, one of HR's core competencies should be knowledge of employment laws. Since unemployment rates are much higher for blacks, I think if this hiring practice became widespread it could open up these companies to discrimination lawsuits.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#75

Post by looprecur »

azanar wrote: post #45
patio11 wrote: 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 par…

True and depressing.

I think one side effect of suburban alienation is that, because this geography thwarts organic friendships and also maintains social class barriers, people fall out of touch with people who are less (or more) fortunate than they are. Their talented but unlucky high school classmates who end up in shit jobs fall completely off the radar. This is what enables Americans to personalize individual success and failure (which are 50-65% luck) to a degree that other free societies would find unconscionable.

I think the post-Facebook generation isn't buying it, though. An internet connection is all you need to see that there are a lot of people getting screwed, and a few being rewarded, for no good reason.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#77

Post by looprecur »

azanar wrote: post #43
koeselitz wrote: post #31

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…

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.

There's something generational in it, as well. Going on rough estimates and statistics I've heard-- although there's no hard basis for these numbers because no one can predict what the employment climate will look like in 2050-- a 22-year-old can expect, over the next 40 years:

* To be fired (not laid off, but personally fired) once.

* To be laid off, or to lose a job because his employer goes out of business, 3 times.

* To quit 3 jobs because of a negative job situation or otherwise pre-emptively (boredom, passed over for a promotion, risk of being laid off).

* To quit 3 jobs because a substantially better offer comes along.

* To quit twice because he needs a break (and won't be allowed to take ~3 months unpaid leave) or is considering career change.

* To leave 1 job to go into school.

* To have at least one spell of unemployment exceed 4 months.

That's 4 involuntary job losses, and 4-7 (the firing, and the there pre-emptive quits are the four; the layoffs are the "maybe" +3) that could be taken to reflect negatively on him and his career. This is what I suspect to be the average case over a 40-year career, with most of the disruptive breaks early on in it.

I don't think this is a bad thing. I think job volatility is, if it's limited and no one gets blackballed or rendered unable to make a living, a good thing. Just as no one is expected to marry their high school sweetheart, people are increasingly "dating" jobs and careers. And although breakups hurt like hell, the fact that they can happen when necessary (as opposed to a world where people marry in their late teens and stay together even if miserable) means people find better matches in the long run.

The result is that we're looking at a generation where everyone will have the experience of being unemployed at some point. But many people in their 40s and 50s got started in a different career environment and have never experienced it.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#78

Post by jasonlotito »

dedward wrote: post #47
pyre wrote: 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…

"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."

How did they get an interview? You don't interview everyone who applies. And if they don't put in a good cover letter, and the resume doesn't look good, why bother?

If they have technical skills that need dealing with, there are other ways to go about testing those technical skills quickly and without an interview process.

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#79

Post by brk »

I have created a solution to this problem.

For $500/mo. you can "work" for me.

The process is similar to basic hosting sites. You can pick from a variety of "companies" and "jobs". They range from BigCo type companies to small startups. Jobs range from developer to management.

We provide a phone number to call for reference checks as well.

Employment is only a click away!

Re: The unemployed will not be considered

#80

Post by JoeAltmaier »

brk wrote: post #79

I have created a solution to this problem. For $500/mo. you can "work" for me. The process is similar to basic hosting sites. You can pick from a variety of "companies" and "jobs". They range from BigCo type companies to small startups. Jobs range from developer to management. We provide a phone number to call for reference checks as well. Employment is only a click away!

I'll do it for $5
Post reply on HN