Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of employment agencies and companies get very suspicious if a persons resume shows that they've been out of work for more than a couple of months. They plainly don't want to hear "I've been looking, but just haven't found anything!" Bad economy or not, these agencies and/or companies seem to toss away the resumes of people who have been out of work for a few months or more (mainly more). Just what can be said to them so they will still consider you for the open position? It use to be/still is that agencies and/or companies would frown on a person that has short work histories (a few months to a year), but now some have to deal with questions concerning length-of-time out of work! Geeshhhhhhhh, give us a break!
People can't keep leaning on that"it's the economy" excuse and have to find ways to get a job. At some people you have to ignore it and come up with a plan
A lot of employment agencies and companies get very suspicious if a persons resume shows that they've been out of work for more than a couple of months. [snipped]
I recently submitted my resume and cover letter to a recruiter
representing a position at an O&G firm ... this is the reply I
received, via email, from the recruiter:
Quote:
Thank you for your response. My client is looking for
someone that has held a recent Business Analyst position.
I will keep you in mind for future opportunities.
Best Regards, ...
That was the first time someone told me *explicitly* that
I am not being considered because of the time I've been
on the job market. Mostly, I am ignored and I receive
no reply, or phone calls (i.e. v-mail's) are not returned.
A lot of employment agencies and companies get very suspicious if a persons resume shows that they've been out of work for more than a couple of months.
They plainly don't want to hear "I've been looking, but just haven't found anything!"
these agencies and/or companies seem to toss away the resumes of people who have been out of work for a few months or more (mainly more).
What evidence do you have to support these claims? Are they just theories? Guesses? Assumptions?
What evidence do you have to support these claims? Are they just theories? Guesses? Assumptions?
I'd say, if you read my response above ^, you'd see I've
experienced this first hand, just last week.
Additionally, I've read numerous articles and have listened
to interviews (NPR?) about candidates being passed on because
of the time spent being unemployed - these are admissions
by recruiters, both internal and external. The longer a person is
unemployed, the more difficult it is to land a position.
I recently submitted my resume and cover letter to a recruiter
representing a position at an O&G firm ... this is the reply I
received, via email, from the recruiter:
That was the first time someone told me *explicitly* that
I am not being considered because of the time I've been
on the job market. Mostly, I am ignored and I receive
no reply, or phone calls (i.e. v-mail's) are not returned.
I'd say, if you read my response above ^, you'd see I've
experienced this first hand, just last week.
Additionally, I've read numerous articles and have listened
to interviews (NPR?) about candidates being passed on because
of the time spent being unemployed - these are admissions
by recruiters, both internal and external. The longer a person is
unemployed, the more difficult it is to land a position.
Well it makes sense, if a person was unemployed 2 years or more then it will look like
1. They were comfortable receiving UE
2.Not that Interested in working
The contract was ended [prematurely], for all of us
consultants, 1 1/2 years ago - the county could not
get funding approved to extend the contract - about
10-12 of us were released.
Well it makes sense, if a person was unemployed 2 years or more then it will look like
1. They were comfortable receiving UE
2. Not that Interested in working
Um, so if someone is submitting for a position, then both
of your arguments[1] don't hold water. Well, #2 more so,
because it could be argued that a person is only applying
for a position to satisfy UE guidelines that a candidate
apply to at least 3 positions a week.
But for those of us honorably submitting for a position,
#1 and #2 don't hold water - I mean, if I really didn't
want to work, why would I apply?
[1] Don't mean to call them *your* arguments, but
let's say, "your assumptions".
Simply read the reply before yours! I've had an agency tell me the same thing over the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmommy
What evidence do you have to support these claims? Are they just theories? Guesses? Assumptions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
