We won't hire you because you have been unemployed too long

Employers should higher based on credentials, not how long a person hasn't worked for.

XileLord

Employment status and recent work history are credentials.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]It's still generally a given that older people have a stronger work ethic, an older generation. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]So, what does the other person do? Or are they just SoL?BranKetra

I don't like the idea of of someone not even being considered because they've been unemployed for a while, without even looking at their qualifications.

But I do understand why, if a business is given two equally qualified applicants to choose from, one who hasn't worked in years and one who has, they might want to choose the one who was working over the one who wasn't. I still don't like it, though.

What is this conservareligionspot now? Seems like that's what off topic has turned intoXileLord

Why is it not fair to factor everything in you legally can when making a hiring decision? ...tbh, I have no issue with an employer of a PRIVATE company using anything/everything as a factor (they are just not allowed to use some things legally). Public companies have ot consider the wants of all the owners (stockholders) Are you telling me you would not a question the girl in the example I gave on the first page of this thread???rawsavon

I think it's entirely fair to factor in everything they can. Unemployment length should be added to that list of things they can't.

Nothing you say is going to make it right in my mind that it's okay to be disqualified because the economy went to hell. If someone is as qualified as the others that are applying for the job, yet they get disqualified because they've been unemployed for a year, that's just plain wrong in my eyes. It's not going to solve anything, and it's going to be harmful to the economy.

As for your example with the girl, I would give her a shot since I wouldn't be losing anything from it. It doesn't really apply to this situation, though.

Context is everything. Had this woman been the best qualified candidate for this position, this thread wouldn't exist and she would have the job. She wasn't the most qualified, and wasn't picked because someone the employer thought was better suited for what they were expecting was given the position. This whole "issue" reeks of entitlement.foxhound_fox

How do you know she wasn't the most qualified?

Sure, but just looking at 2 people doesn't invalidate those who do have a work ethic.topsemag55

Ofc it depends a lot upon what upbringing they had as children - a good parent would instill a work ethic in their child.topsemag55

[QUOTE="austi722"]

Next a law will be passed saying buisnesses cannot refuse to give someone a job if they've been out of work to long.

XileLord

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]Just asking. I mean, there are always other jobs. I just want to get it out in the open. BranKetra

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

Employers should higher based on credentials, not how long a person hasn't worked for.

coolbeans90

Employment status and recent work history are credentials.

You're generally a more attractive proposition if you're currently working rather than unemployed, and as others have mentioned it's human nature to assume there are underlying issues with the long term unemployed. Also if a market is tight, there's an overflow of candidates for any given job and the person charged with the deselection process hasn't the time to speak with everyone and has to resort to mak ing judgement calls on what's presented on a resume. That's just the way it works.

As for your example with the girl, I would give her a shot since I wouldn't be losing anything from it. It doesn't really apply to this situation, though.

airshocker

Answer and I will show relevance

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Ofc it depends a lot upon what upbringing they had as children - a good parent would instill a work ethic in their child.rawsavon

For all we know the person who's been out work less could've been the worst employee ever.While the one out of work longer the best employee.austi722

I did not ask if you would give her a shot...

I asked if it would cross your mind. Would it cross your mind (the fact she had been on countless first dates for the last 2 years but no guy would ever ask her on a second).

Answer and I will show relevance

rawsavon

Ah. Yes, it would cross my mind.

Present discussion aside, I think it's pretty unfair for a company to do this (if they haven't taken all things into consideration). Being unemployed because you're unemployed is an extremely tough place to get out of. I'm quite worried about being in this position myself (in fact I'm probbaly worse off) and I know my (future) employment is going to be extremely difficult to deal with, unless of course you find a smaller, friendly company more willing to comply with human compassion.

i'm not really seeing the issueColin1192

Remember, you cannot see in text what a person is saying.topsemag55

*head scratch*

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Remember, you cannot see in text what a person is saying.m0zart

*head scratch*

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]Ofc it depends a lot upon what upbringing they had as children - a good parent would instill a work ethic in their child.topsemag55

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Remember, you cannot see in text what a person is saying.topsemag55

*head scratch*

Heh ok. I guess I couldn't see what you were saying.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

Employers should higher based on credentials, not how long a person hasn't worked for.

XileLord

Employment status and recent work history are credentials.

One of the facets to work experience is how "fresh" it is and how up-to-date it is. (some industries are more dynamic than others, though) It is not ridiculous; it is a very tangible risk factor. The best applicants are the ones currently using a similar position as their profession. Kids right out of high school also lack credentials for a job position, and likewise should be passed over when compared with others currently experienced and active in the industry. The most qualified candidates should be hired, period.

[QUOTE="Colin1192"]i'm not really seeing the issuenarutosup

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

I did not ask if you would give her a shot...

I asked if it would cross your mind. Would it cross your mind (the fact she had been on countless first dates for the last 2 years but no guy would ever ask her on a second).

Answer and I will show relevance

airshocker

Ah. Yes, it would cross my mind.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

*head scratch*

m0zart

Heh ok. I guess I couldn't see what you were saying.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

*head scratch*

m0zart

Heh ok. I guess I couldn't see what you were saying.

damnit

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]I don't have a problem with getting hired for being the top candidate, either. Better that way. I don't think that's the problem. From what I understand it, the lady wasn't hired just because she hasn't been working for the past two years. If someone actively searches for a job, can't find one for years, then it's a problem if they can't get hired because of that. It's like a catch-22, almost.BranKetra

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

Employers should higher based on credentials, not how long a person hasn't worked for.

XileLord

Employment status and recent work history are credentials.

It does look bad being unemployed for a long time. But thats what happens when people are fiscally irresponsible

One of the facets to work experience is how "fresh" it is and how up-to-date it is. (some industries are more dynamic than others, though) coolbeans90

...mother f***ing lolrawsavon

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] It can be -but it is natural to wonder why person 'a' has been able to work in the industry and person 'b' has not -it is also natural to think the person that has been working will be more 'sharp' -it is also a better fiscal policy to replace old and expensive with young and cheap (see sports)rawsavon

A person with say 5 years to go before retirment may be a better propsition in some cases than a young upstart whose lofty ambitions may be construed as being a flight risk.A blend of youth and experience is a good hiring policy to have.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] ...mother f***ing loltopsemag55

Exactly. Now, what do they tell you about an interview...that everything you say and do makes an impression -your resume (any errors, word choices, etc) -how you dress -how early/late you get there -how you talk -how you shake their hand ...my point is that all these things create a picture of 'you'...it all works together. It is only natural that they wonder why no one will 'date this girl'...that it is part of the impressionrawsavon

I get what you're saying, but I still don't think it should be a factor.

It sounds like it's just going to be harmful to the country in the long-run.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] ...mother f***ing loltopsemag55

It sounds like it's just going to be harmful to the country in the long-run.

airshocker

How is this worse than if it could not be a factor?

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] ...mother f***ing lolrawsavon

If each and every one of your posts doesn't have a swear word in it I will not vote for you. >=(

[spoiler] Unless the cussing is replaced with advances towards me :P [/spoiler]

Mods don't post like that.topsemag55

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] I get it. I wonder if there are other cases where younger people have been out of work for a while and not hired because of that fact over someone older, but out for the same amount of time.poptart

A person with say 5 years to go before retirment may be a better propsition in some cases than a young upstart whose lofty ambitions may be construed as being a flight risk.A blend of youth and experience is a good hiring policy to have.

It sounds like it's just going to be harmful to the country in the long-run.airshocker

after the election rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] *looks at sig, looks at post* Mods don't post like that.:PDigitalExile

If each and every one of your posts doesn't have a swear word in it I will not vote for you. >=(

*Unless the cussing is replaced with advances towards me :P *

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]after the election topsemag55