Looking for work? Unemployed need not apply

[^_^ 5,021]

Try getting time off from a ####### job to go to better job interviews.

another +1

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

People have a hard time finding work as it is... why force them go and work in fast food or something, only to obtain a decent job later on? The skills aren't transferable anyway. I flipped burgers for a few weeks, so can I please come and answer your phones?

I advise you no tto take my advice. I only hire hundreds of people in my work, what would I know? Besides, less competition for my kids.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's an attitude thing.

It sends a positive message to a company when they find someone who's already working and is able to maintain another job while looking for another one.

Anything else is just plain lazy.

The fact that mooches would rather live on the government dime than get a temporary job is ridiculous and I sure as hell wouldn't hire someone that had that entitlement mentality that they would only accept a job like they had before.

Sometimes you have to hit the bottom to work your way back up.

Bingo. Lazy people make excuses, productive people work. I do not care that you flipped burgers before applying as a CEO, I care that you WORKED. I care that you list an employer, not "laid off, but not my fault" Whiner. I hire productive people and have no use for lazy people, you do what you want, fine by me.

Or you run a little startup or contract until a job comes. I might be willing to flip burgers to survive but I would never put it on my resume that would be absolutely crazy!

Not true. I will hire that person that was laid off and flipped burgers while collecting unemployment LONG before I will hire the person that sat on his @ss.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Try getting time off from a ####### job to go to better job interviews. If you got some money saved up you can weather the unemployment. BTW, no decent prospective employer is impressed that you've got a crappy job. The part-time job is your best bet for flexibility and some compensation.

It works like this. You have a crappy job and a really good possible job interview. You tell your crappy employer, "I am taking the afternoon off for important personal business" Bye. DO NOT say "please may I..." If he fires you, then get another crappy job, they are about a dime for 2 dozen.

People working are simply more marketable in the job market than people laid off. You can debate the reasons, but the reasons really don't matter. It also doesn't matter if you like it, think its fair, or think I am right or not. I didn't write the article presented here so I guess I am not the first to think of it.

[^_^ 5,021]

I will hire that person that was laid off and flipped burgers while collecting unemployment LONG before I will hire the person that sat on his @ss.

The usual advice from headhunters is to NOT include your Wendy's job in a resume for an IT Manager position, but to not be too embarrassed to mention it when your employment gap comes up in the interview.

Also, the experts say you're better off freelancing in your field even if it means smaller projects done for little to no pay, than to work at Wendy's.

But then you're an expert too so who knows

[Gemmie 142]

I advise you no tto take my advice. I only hire hundreds of people in my work, what would I know? Besides, less competition for my kids.

And your perspective is one of many, I've also been told that you should stay in your profession and get skills that are transferable only. My background is in psychological research and NO ONE I have interviewed with would've been impressed to hear I was working at Wendy's. They want to see an internship, some volunteer work, anything entry-level that is in the field.

Being unemployed is not always due to laziness, and it's actually offensive when people assume that immediately. I've known people that have spent so long looking for work, not collecting welfare, and not gotten any hits due to the area they live in, the school they got their degree from, no prior experience, loads of reasons.

[alienlovechild 75]

It works like this. You have a crappy job and a really good possible job interview. You tell your crappy employer, "I am taking the afternoon off for important personal business" Bye. DO NOT say "please may I..." If he fires you, then get another crappy job, they are about a dime for 2 dozen.

That's what happened. I was fired from my crappy graveyard shift factory job. I got far better long-term a little later.

Getting those dime a dozen ####### jobs and hopping from job to job frequently is also a red flag for most employers except maybe for you of course.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

This is only true in a tight job market. With a high ratio of prospects to jobs the employers have to use some measure to start the process. Picking those that are good enough to keep their job in a bad market like this is a valid way to weed out those that are less than top picks. Once the job market opens up and the ratio drops that metric will no longer be applied.

[Teacher Mark 53]

I'd take the burger flipper over the person on unemployment, depending on the overall impression and qualifications of the applicant. I think in that job market you want to think way outside the box and find ways to stand out, not relying on what "most" recommend.

Anyone mention how your current employer would feel about you sniffing around for another job? If you were on the fence already you may find yourself among the ranks of the unemployed, should they find out.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Mr. Saigon

[zqt3344 21]

Yes, hope and change we can all believe in! Thank you Ovomit, some stimulus from over a year ago that still is not working and has only burdened all of us with more new taxes, idiot!

By Chris Isidore, senior writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.

Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.

"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."

Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.

After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.

But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.

"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.

She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.

"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.

It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.

"Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."

Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.

Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.

"It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them."

http://money.cnn.com...apply/index.htm