
When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed - vaksel
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2073520,00.html
======
Mc_Big_G
My wife is seeing this now. I commented (under my old nick) on her great
experience and inability to get a job here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=725852>

At the time I thought it was due to her not being a US citizen and others in
the thread thought that perhaps it was due to location (Toledo/Detroit area
which is suffering).

We've since relocated to the SF Bay area and she is still not getting any
calls despite having fantastic IT experience. At this point I can only
attribute the lack of interest to the fact that she is unemployed and/or that
she hasn't worked in 5 years due to marrying me, moving from Spain and the
time it takes to get a visa/work permit.

EDIT: Technically she worked for one year in Toledo at a Kohl's dept. store
unloading trucks and folding clothes. This is soul-crushing for someone who
was at a Director level position in IT, but she is the kind of person who will
do whatever is necessary.

~~~
palish
It sounds like she may not be connecting with the right people. Specifically,
she might want to talk (in person, repeatedly) with managers / other decision
makers. Once she's convinced one of them, then they can push internally to get
her hired.

Basically, the goal is to convince the correct people at a specific company
that they _want_ to hire her. This is rarely accomplished by resume carpet-
bombing.

It's worked for me. I landed my first job when I was still in high school
(which allowed me to drop out). I landed my second job by talking with their
lead designer over IRC / AIM, showing him how enthusiastic I was, explaining
the kinds of things I could do, etc, until he finally gave me a chance to
prove it.

I should probably mention that both times, I never brought up money until they
did.

Good luck!

~~~
gaius
Absolutely correct. The savvy candidate has always known, you need to somehow
do an end-run around HR and get the attention of people who will be your cow-
orkers or your manager. Get _them_ to submit your CV via internal channels,
and chase it up, acting as your sponsor from within. Industry events,
participating in an online/offline community, "networking" are the way to do
this.

------
guynamedloren
_People who have lost jobs or have never been hired are less qualified as a
group than those who are currently working, they say. People who are out of
the workforce for a significant period of time may also have fallen behind in
skills._

This is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons. The first counter-argument
that comes to mind is that people who have been "out of the workforce" may
actually be _more_ qualified than those in the workplace. Of course it varies
between industries, but it's not uncommon for employees to become less
inspired, less motivated, and less likely to pick up new skills over the
years. People who are out of work would be wise to take the time to brush up
on their trade and work on related projects between jobs, not only for
personal gain, but to impress potential employers. I am amazed that companies
legitimately believe that development and experience _only_ happens in the
workplace.

Another lingering question in my mind: why wouldn't these companies use
unemployment to their advantage? They could surely offer lower salaries to
out-of-work employees (who may be desperate for work) than currently-employed
employees.

~~~
monochromatic
> as a group

Sure, there are exceptions like you point out... but I'm guessing that applied
to the groups, this is a non-ridiculous assertion.

~~~
palish
Shoudn't the goal of every technology company be to hire exceptional people?

~~~
matwood
Not really. The goal is to hire people who get the specific job done for the
least amount of money. Lots of companies pay lip service to wanting
exceptional people, but they pay crap and have a horrible work environment.

~~~
dspeyer
For technical support in a non-technical company, yes. But for an actual tech
company, where tech is the product? A company with that philosophy will
produce mediocre results and lose in the market.

Certainly the trend-setting giants (MS, Google, Facebook) are seriously trying
to hire the best.

~~~
sgift
> A company with that philosophy will produce mediocre results and lose in the
> market.

The first part of this sentence is probably correct, the second part is
probably incorrect. There are millions (okay, I exaggerate: thousands) of
programs out there which do not "lose in the market" despite being mediocre.
One of the recipes is specialization: If the decision for a company is "no
software or mediocre software" mediocre wins.

------
m_myers
Hmm. They start talking about making things illegal at just about the same
point that I'm thinking this can be a great competitive advantage for anyone
who _will_ hire unemployed workers. Different points of view, I guess.

~~~
balloot
You're definitely right about the competitive advantage thing. You want to
create a silly blanket rule? Fine - I'll be happy to interview the guy who's a
rockstar engineer but decided to travel Asia for 6 months.

~~~
dreamdu5t
We're talking about unemployed, not somebody who has the money to burn on
traveling to Asia for 6 months.

~~~
hugh3
Still unemployed! But we are talking edge cases here.

~~~
nradov
No. <http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5> "Persons are classified as
unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the
prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

~~~
dspeyer
This is the definition used for assembling official statistics. It is unlikely
that this is used by companies setting hiring rules.

------
minishark
Pretty soon, we'll hear about companies who won't interview employed workers,
because obviously if you're looking around while you've already got a job, it
means you're not a loyal employee.

~~~
mgkimsal
Furthermore, it does happen somewhat already with the "job hopper" label.
You've only been at bigco for 18 months and you're already interviewing
someplace else? You'll have no loyalty to our company!

~~~
quanticle
Yeah, that always gets to me, for some reason. "You expect me to demonstrate
loyalty to you when your corporation is not willing to demonstrate the same
loyalty to me? Yeah, right."

Of course, what I actually say is, "I really enjoyed my time at BigCo, and I
learned a lot there, but I'm looking to broaden and deepen my skills. Your
job, because of <differences x, y, and z> seems like it'd be a good fit for
that."

------
hung
Someone should compile a list of companies that won't consider unemployed
applicants. Perhaps with enough bad publicity these companies will change
their policies.

~~~
khafra
I'm employed, but taking a job with a company that just throws away resumes
from the currently unemployed would leave a bad taste in my mouth. I would
find such a list valuable.

------
minimax
LinkedIn should let me tick a box that says I'm not interested in talking to
any company that refuses to interview the unemployed.

EDIT: I'm employed and get pinged on LinkedIn on a pretty regular basis.

------
thematt
This is one great thing about the software engineering profession, there's
really no excuse for not being "employed". Even if you are laid off from your
job and can't find work...you can always start a side company or work on a
project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a resume perspective.
I can't imagine a scenario in which there will ever be a gap like that in my
resume.

~~~
georgieporgie
_or work on a project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a
resume perspective._

I have a hard time believing that a 'project' would look anything like
employment, and I think your ruse would fall apart under interview scrutiny.

Mind you, the best thing you can do when you're cut is to start a business.
B.S. is better than a blank stare, but not by much.

~~~
saraid216
When I was unemployed, I spent a chunk of the time writing an open source
project. I put it down on my resume as "Hobby project to hone skills in Ruby,
Javascript, and HTML5 Canvas" and it ended up being the best demonstration of
actual work I could share with my interviewer.

~~~
20after4
Same, I got my job based largely on the quality of my code which was created
for a hobby project. Those who are hiring programmers love to see real work
even if it was a hobby project. The quality of your code speaks for it's self.

------
ChuckMcM
I'm always curious about what people who are members of the 'long term
unemployed' are doing while unemployed.

There are big chunks of people who are unemployed with two strikes against
them, they are under-educated and they are single parents.

This double whammy kills you because if you aren't working you can't pay for
day care, if you can't pay for day care then a big chunk of your time is taken
up in providing day care (depending on the age of your children).

So if you pick out the 'edge' case where you have:

two work capable parents

both with college degrees

fewer than four children (all over the age of 5)

There is an "easy" answer, upgrade your skills and/or education, get a job. I
know a couple in Texas who did exactly that, the husband, went to community
college, transferred to the state university system, and they are now 3 years
unemployed and 1 year away from being a newly minted EE with a paid summer
internship under their belt. They have recruiters talking to them at school
but on my and others advice they are going to finish the degree before
actually taking anyone up on those offers.

I've talked with people for whom 'job hunting' wasn't an issue, until it was,
and they only realized a year later that their previous experience really
wasn't all that applicable to anything really.

~~~
HedgeMage
Hi, I'm under-educated and a single parent of a special needs child. I was a
stay-at-home mom (my son was 4) when a looming divorce prompted me to re-enter
the workforce.

Nobody wanted to hire me, so I started a company.

Now (almost 4 years later) not only am I employable, but I get 2-5 contacts
from people who want to talk about hiring me per month.

I'm __really __tired of hearing the "poor single mom" drum beaten. I did it,
despite my child's special needs, despite a medical condition that limits my
employment options, and plenty of other challenges other people can do it to.
If it's hard to figure out, and I just haven't noticed that it is, tell me and
I'll write a book.

Putting myself in an employer's shoes, I'd be leery of hiring anyone who's
been long-term unemployed. What _does_ one do with the time? When I couldn't
find a job, I created one. While not everyone is predisposed to
entrepreneurship, surely a few months in to not finding employment, any
sufficiently determined person would at least try it.

I'm not saying they'll all succeed -- but I'm not sure you _have to_ succeed.
When you start your own venture, you go from being unemployed to being
employed, and that solves the original problem -- you are no longer a member
of the long-term unemployed.

I think its fair to say that someone who's had no break in their unemployment
more than a year (assuming they aren't a full-time student, seriously ill, a
stay-at-home parent, etc.) probably has something wrong with how they approach
becoming employed, and a lot of those somethings would also negatively impact
their performance as an employee. It's fine to be skeptical, and it's _not_ a
slight against the under-educated or single parents.

~~~
ChuckMcM
"I think its fair to say that someone who's had no break in their unemployment
more than a year (assuming they aren't a full-time student, seriously ill, a
stay-at-home parent, etc.) probably has something wrong with how they approach
becoming employed, and a lot of those somethings would also negatively impact
their performance as an employee."

I suspect that captures the essence of why companies have this sort of policy.
And, as you point out, its pretty straight forward to be "employed" if only
self employed by creating your own business and running it.

------
spudlyo
As someone who has been looking at resumes all week, I don't have a problem
with this. This just means there are more excellent candidates for me to
choose from.

I tend to prefer candidates that are currently unemployed, because I feel they
have something to prove and will work hard to make a good impression. I'm
dubious about folks who are already employed, I don't now if they're for real,
or if they're just using me to get a raise at their current job.

------
aridiculous
There's a few options and I don't think outlawing it is a good one. It will
continue to happen regardless, because it's particularly difficult to prove
and enforce.

It is ridiculous for companies to have that as an axiom. What about brilliant
students? And what about people taking a break from working (I'd actually
think they were more sane than a person who never takes a break from work
given they both could afford it)?

You could always fight back by lying on your resume and getting a smooth-
talking friend as a reference. It's questionably immoral, but corporations are
immoral by design. Just pretend you're the corporation of <your birth name
here>. I think there's a website service for that as well, I forget the URL.

~~~
adharmad
<http://www.thereferencestore.com/>

------
habitatforus
I got my current job because everyone I was competing against was unemployed.
Companies treat it like the kiss of death. Friends of mine who have been
unemployed fr less than 60 days find work. More that 60 days stay unemployed
for months and months.

~~~
troels
So, the friend which gets hired straight away gets hired straight away,
whereas those who don't don't. ;)

------
jpitz
Well, my little LLC provides a nice little hedge against that problem, doesn't
it?

------
j_baker
It really seems that software development isn't immune to this effect. How
many times have you heard people say "Good programmers are _never_ on the
market"? It just bothers me that people don't get that sometimes bad things
happen to otherwise qualified people.

~~~
ahi
Always have other opportunities lined up. I could get canned tomorrow and be
working a new job within a week. I try to maintain two or three positions
ready and waiting for me at all times. We are programmers of fortune. My
employer's crappy ERP project inspires many emotions; loyalty is not one of
them.

------
dkarl
In a way, my company (let's call it MegaCorp) discriminates in favor of the
unemployed, though it's really just our own soon-to-be-unemployed. We have to
get special approval to hire outside the company, because our corporate
masters desperately want us to hire from our "surplus" pool, the pool of
people who are being laid off from their current positions, so we can report
fewer layoffs. Apparently, we care so much about our layoff numbers that we go
out of our way to retain even the employees that topped somebody's "least
essential" list. We occasionally see strong candidates from that pool,
however, so we do pay attention to their resumes.

Personally, I was unemployed for over a year and am very, very aware of how
much easier it is to look for a job when I have a job. I and other people I
know who have been in that situation don't look at unemployed candidates as
damaged goods. We look at them as potential victims (bwahahahaha!) who, shall
we say, will negotiate from a much weaker position and then come to work much
more eager to please! No, seriously, we look at them the same way we look at
people who are unemployed. There are lots of well-paid losers and plenty of
people who are out of work because they were in the wrong place at the wrong
time.

------
rsheridan6
If some company chooses to hire only job hoppers, that means ever hire they
make takes a worker from another company, so a job vacancy is created, unless
the other company chooses to eliminate the position instead of hiring a new
employee.

Net effect on the unemployed: nil.

If a campaign against companies that refuse to hire the unemployed takes off,
the most likely result is that they'll continue to do so quietly.

Net effect on the unemployed: more time wasted applying to jobs that they
never had a chance of getting.

FWIW, I think hiring only job hoppers is idiotic.

------
chaser6077
Has anyone here worked on a start-up for a few years which did not become a
success and then successfully transitioned back into the workforce? If so did
you have any trouble transitioning socially(i was a sole founder) and or
keeping the jobs you landed?

------
leelin
Has anyone ever tried to hack this by claiming the unemployed time was
"spending the last N months working on various startups or co-founder
searches" which unfortunately failed for reasons X,Y,Z?

~~~
mattdeboard
Kind of. I (truthfully) told people that for my 3-month window of (voluntary)
unemployment I was working on projects of interest and focusing on deepening
my skillsets. All 100% true. I got a great job last week.

------
geekzgalore
Being a woman in IT/software development and unemployed would count as two
strikes then..

~~~
HedgeMage
Why do you think that?

~~~
geekzgalore
I have personally experienced a slight bias towards women (esp. married women
having children). Throw in unemployment, and the picture is doubly glum.

------
lotusleaf1987
60 Minutes had a special on companies that refuse to hire smokers, eventually
some of the examples like police departments had to give it up as they weren't
able to hire the best employees. In 44 states you can be fired without
reason/cause.

------
georgieporgie
Well then, I'll be adding Sony Ericsson to the list of companies I won't
support. I'll send them an email to let them know they lost a potential future
customer. I vote with my dollars, and I have a very long memory for grudges.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'm sure their CEO will be heart-broken.

~~~
georgieporgie
I would genuinely like to know what you hope to convey with your comment.

People shouldn't vote with their dollars? People who vote with their dollars
shouldn't bother the mighty giants with their lowly opinions? Only a CEO can
affect change within a company? Opinions are worthless unless they garner the
attention of the CEO?

~~~
pavel_lishin
My point was that in most cases, a company couldn't care less what someone
they've never heard of emails then and proudly declares that that company has
lost their business forever.

Now, this might be a difference. If you're a current or previous customer, it
might warrant a reply e-mail. If you're in charge of large purchasing
decisions, you might get a personal phone call. If you're Paul Graham, you
might actually get a CEO to respond to you.

You should absolutely vote with your wallet, you are entirely within your
rights to e-mail them and complain, but I think that it's like spitting into a
swimming pool - unless a lot of people do it*, change will not happen.

Or unless you're, say, King Kong. I assume you are not.

~~~
georgieporgie
There was nothing proud about my email. I enjoy a diverse ecosystem, and am
saddened to lose an option, but I place ethics first.

My message to them may or may not be heard, and may or may not play any part
in changing their approach. Your message to me, on the other hand, had a
definite negative effect, and for no purpose.

