>If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something.
WHY??!?!? Seriously, WHY?!?!
So, I'm thinking that maybe there's some skew in these findings, and then you come in and say "Yea, I wouldn't hire you unless you show me you did more than just look for work".
Looking for work is time consuming. Furthermore, as the spouse who's currently jobless you may be pulling double duty taking care of the kids, or fixing up the house, or helping out the household in some other way (maybe working at McDonald's), things that you don't put on your resume. Little does such a person realize, that there are people like you, who look at his or her resume and dismiss them as lazy.
I didn't do the resume filtering, I was doing interviewing. As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer. I would have accepted looking after pre-school kids or major house renovations or working at McDonald's. Basically anything that shows you are the sort of person that makes lemon-aid when life gives you lemons.
>As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer.
Let's take that. A person with a good employment history, leaves (or loses) their job and takes a few months off to do nothing. What exactly makes them unhireable when they rejoin the workforce?
Furthermore, how do you know the person you're interviewing will tell you that they were looking after kids, or working at McDonald's. Maybe they don't consider it relevant work experience, or maybe they were embarrassed, or better yet maybe it was something personal that's none of your business (e.g. a health issue, a messy divorce etc.), whatever it is, they decide to not go into details. Why punish them?
>I'm sure to other people perhaps taking time off is seen as some sort of weakness, but you don't want to work for those people anyways.
Ideally. But for anyone outside of tech and possibly financial, it's a buyers market. If you have bills to pay, and a family to support, you may not afford to be so picky.
The reality is that you are competing against people who have been increasing their skill at relevant tasks and you have not. It's no more complicated than that. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
That makes no sense, for so many reasons. Here's one: 10 years of experience with a 6 month break is worse than 5 years of experience and a 2 month break? Here's another: skill increase is not linear. Here's another: People are different.
Unfortunately, HR departments do not have the time or resources to take into account differences in individuals. When looking at two resumes, they have to evaluate them based on certain criteria, and they have to assume that all other things are equal. (They rarely are, but life is unfair like that.)
Looking for work isn't an idle task, it is sales and marketing. If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised. No money exchanging hands is not relevant, you were still working in a legitimate profession doing legitimate work. It is a job and should go on your resume. Likewise for home care, if that was your primary profession during that period of time.
So you're saying this person or anyone should put on their resume, rather than
[last position] [last company] [long time ago - 8 months ago]
they should put
Personal Marketing Assistant Me, Myself and I 8 months ago - Present
* Analyzed potential job contracts with future employers
* Bid for relevant contracts using specialized letters of qualifications
* Proselytized Mr. John Do to applicable markets using word of mouth and print
techniques
[last position] [last company] [long time ago - 8 months ago]
>If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised.
Clearly, CLEARLY, employers in the US are finicky and capricious, I'm not disputing that. The study in the article proves this. I'm arguing they are irrationally so. Let's take the worst case scenario. What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later? Obviously, if I do that with every job it raises (legitimate) questions, but what if I just did it once, and I had a good employment history prior. What possible reason is there to punish such a person? He took a few months off (on his dime) one time in his life and now he's unhirable?
The insanity comes in that this scenario is not what happens. Generally, people lose their jobs, and it takes awhile to find another, and apparently if you cross the magic threshold of six months, you're now a lazy slob.
" What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later?"
Nothing. The big question is what you do in month 8 when you decide to re-enter the work force. You've made it harder to find a job, but if you had enough savings to voluntarily take 7 months off, then presumably you have sufficient savings to plug the hole.
If you want to spend seven months watching TV, then document it. Explain your motivation, what you gained from the experience, etc. My earlier point was that the "we shall not speak of this time" gap in the resume is the problem, not that you were not making money during a period of time.
Everything in life is a job, including watching TV. You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something. At least that is how I take the whole thing.
>You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something.
In context of this article, most people aren't even given a chance to account for that time. Their application gets filtered out and they are never called in for an interview. That's one problem. Another problem is that it may not be relevant at all. Worse, it can be something that is highly personal. What if you had health problems and you had to take time off, should you really need to disclose something like this?
I am referring to accounting on the resume, not in an interview setting. Even getting sick and caring for yourself is a job, which could easily be accounted for, without going into too much detail.
Whether you should have to is another matter, but it seems clear that you do have to if you want equal chances with others. That doesn't make it right, but you have to work with the constraints you are given.
WHY??!?!? Seriously, WHY?!?!
So, I'm thinking that maybe there's some skew in these findings, and then you come in and say "Yea, I wouldn't hire you unless you show me you did more than just look for work".
Looking for work is time consuming. Furthermore, as the spouse who's currently jobless you may be pulling double duty taking care of the kids, or fixing up the house, or helping out the household in some other way (maybe working at McDonald's), things that you don't put on your resume. Little does such a person realize, that there are people like you, who look at his or her resume and dismiss them as lazy.