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.
Harmless deception? Like being a little bit pregnant?
The poster combined two jobs to make it look like he was employed at one company longer-- now if this happened back in 1985 or 1998 and he just showed the skills as more functional versus a resume with a timeline then I would perhaps agree with you.
BUT, purposely formatting your resume to make it seem like you were with a company far longer than you were by combining to jobs under one company's position title, years of service, and experience is lying and at my company and a previous company would be grounds for dismissal or a rescinding of an offer. Period-- whether or not that candidate thinks it is no big deal.
Reformatting the resume by maintaining the integrity of truth WITHOUT trying to deceive is what resume folks would tell you to do. If you have so many jobs, you do a functional resume so that the first thing not glaring in your face is look at all of these jobs I have had but have spent a little time at each one!!! YAY!!!
Saying you have a bachelors in basket weaving but leaving off the 1978 graduation date is NOT deceiving. Saying your Associates is a Bachelors because you happened to take some other classes too is deception as would be saying you worked as an XYZ company for 2-3 years when in reality you worked the same job title at 3 different companies in the same time period.
Once again, your "deception" example doesn't fit with what the OP did.
Changing an Associates to a Bachelors degree would alter his QUALIFICATIONS.
He got the interview 100% on his qualifications.
He has NOT altered his ABILITIES or QUALIFICATIONS.
Working in ONE company for a longer period of time is IRRELEVANT to his qualifications because he was working in ANOTHER comparable company during that time making his QUALIFICATIONS AND LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT / EXPERIENCE the SAME.
He has not indicated that EITHER company is better than the other.
That makes him EQUALLY QUALIFIED whether he worked in ONE or BOTH since they are EQUITABLE sources for references.
The ONLY reason he combined the years into one is because he was told that it SEEMED as if he was a JOB-HOPPER.
This simply changes that wrongful perception but his Qualifications remain the SAME.
If he didn't get interviews because of an ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION that he is a job-hopper when he is NOT, the fault lies with the employers glossing over and incorrectly interpreting his resume.
I would be supportive if an older applicant omitted a company he worked for and SHORTENED dates he worked at another company if that made him seem younger just to try to get an interview. Attempting to overcome an age bias in this manner is on the same level of "deception", and it is due to being judged, actually illegally judged.
Oh, and you can't be a little pregnant, but there have been overweight women assumed to be pregnant.
if a woman's appearance leads prospective employers to THINK she might be pregnant on first impression, wearing a girdle to hide her stomach in an effort to avoid being incorrectly judged and not given a chance for employment is an understandable as well.
Not being considered for an interview because of misconceptions and pre-conceivedbiases on the part of employers that cause them to OVERLOOK the qualifications of applicants makes the employer wrong.
I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass perceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
Raymond, I'm not bothering with your latest post, too tedious with all the caps and bold, so I'll answer your first one.
You seem to suggest that only if something is 'harmful' to the company, it makes that action wrong. Define harmful. Lying on the application may not be physically or psychologically harmful, but it is cheating period, giving an unfair advantage over other, honest applicants.
It could be damaging to the employer that the new hire turns out to be a job-hopper, costing them resources to run repeated competitions when that person inevitably leaves too soon. The bundling several-experiences-into-one tactic gives the illusion of stability to the hiring organization, and that is falsifying information, and again wrong. Especially if that is the final deciding criterion.
Your other point about it being OK as long as the employer doesn't find out is just as wrong. 'Legal as long as I don't get caught'
Raymond, I'm not bothering with your latest post, too tedious with all the caps and bold, so I'll answer your first one.
You seem to suggest that only if something is 'harmful' to the company, it makes that action wrong. Define harmful. Lying on the application may not be physically or psychologically harmful, but it is cheating period, giving an unfair advantage over other, honest applicants.
It could be damaging to the employer that the new hire turns out to be a job-hopper, costing them resources to run repeated competitions when that person inevitably leaves too soon. The bundling several-experiences-into-one tactic gives the illusion of stability to the hiring organization, and that is falsifying information, and again wrong. Especially if that is the final deciding criterion.
Your other point about it being OK as long as the employer doesn't find out is just as wrong. 'Legal as long as I don't get caught'
Unfair advantage if a pre-conceived and incorrect BIAS on the part of employers is eliminated and the OP only wants to be judged by his qualifications???
And you accept that employers don't hire people based on WRONGFUL perceptions, even illegal ones?
For example, not hiring someone because of age if they are qualified and capable is illegal, but it's obviously widespread ... that's just life I guess?
If people get hired because another person is WRONGFULLY pre-judged, that is fair?
In this case, the OP is the one being "hurt" because of being wrongfully judged with his previous resume, his new resume merely highlights his qualifications more by eliminating a preconceived bias... all it does is give him a chance for a 1st interview he wasn't getting.
The only thing his new resume changes is a prospective employers WRONGFUL perception of him.
They are interviewing him because they are only considering his qualifications now.
There are many companies that wouldn't care even if they did find out that he combined years with 2 comparable companies into 1 when it doesn't change his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE, especially if his references from ALL those companies, listed or not, are good.
What the OP has done is TRIVIAL enough that "getting "caught" for that discrepancy won't even matter to many companies who don't even bother doing thorough background checks.
Once again, I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass pre-conceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
Doing that actually makes the hiring process fairer if qualifications are considered WITHOUT bias.
I'm starting a MS in accounting this fall. I picked an accredited but inexpensive university for it.
MSChemist good for you and I wish you luck and success! At least you are doing something to get out of your field.
I have an accounting degree (although not a MS-- My MS will be in IS this spring I graduate) and accounting/finance has been very rewarding for me although I took it in a different direction than traditional accounting roles. However, the education and learning were and still remain very valuable.
When you move into that new career-- try not to carry the bitterness you have in your present field-- and really try to go in not so guarded. I have found the field rewarding and I truly do enjoy my job and work, every day-- although some less than others.
Once again, your "deception" example doesn't fit with what the OP did.
Changing an Associates to a Bachelors degree would alter his QUALIFICATIONS.
He got the interview 100% on his qualifications.
He has NOT altered his ABILITIES or QUALIFICATIONS.
Working in ONE company for a longer period of time is IRRELEVANT to his qualifications because he was working in ANOTHER comparable company during that time making his QUALIFICATIONS AND LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT / EXPERIENCE the SAME.
He has not indicated that EITHER company is better than the other.
That makes him EQUALLY QUALIFIED whether he worked in ONE or BOTH since they are EQUITABLE sources for references.
The ONLY reason he combined the years into one is because he was told that it SEEMED as if he was a JOB-HOPPER.
This simply changes that wrongful perception but his Qualifications remain the SAME.
If he didn't get interviews because of an ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION that he is a job-hopper when he is NOT, the fault lies with the employers glossing over and incorrectly interpreting his resume.
I would be supportive if an older applicant omitted a company he worked for and SHORTENED dates he worked at another company if that made him seem younger just to try to get an interview. Attempting to overcome an age bias in this manner is on the same level of "deception", and it is due to being judged, actually illegally judged.
Oh, and you can't be a little pregnant, but there have been overweight women assumed to be pregnant.
if a woman's appearance leads prospective employers to THINK she might be pregnant on first impression, wearing a girdle to hide her stomach in an effort to avoid being incorrectly judged and not given a chance for employment is an understandable as well.
Not being considered for an interview because of misconceptions and pre-conceivedbiases on the part of employers that cause them to OVERLOOK the qualifications of applicants makes the employer wrong.
I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass perceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
The original poster wrote the following....
Quote:
I have worked for 3 employers in the past 3 years and currently jobless. ---this is the fact---
I had a large problem even with getting an interview, although my skill and background fit many jobs. A lot of the recruiters claim that my CV is too volatile and hesitate to invite me for an interview.
Later on, I revised my resume. I put the first 2 years experience with 2 companies together into one. Therefore, it looks that I worked for one employer for 2 years. Except for this issue, I didn't lie on my term of service even no exaggeration of my skills and experience. ---this would be the deception---
I'm wondering whether this is categorized as a fake resume?
I'm running with a big firm with this resume and succeeded in the first round interview. But I'm very much concerned how I can deal with the background check if they hire me.
Could any of you please give me some clues? Thanks.
I have bolded the areas of deception that I have addressed a few times now to help you out...
I completely disagree with you about there being deception or not-- he is willfully deceiving another company about the truth of his work history. It may not be on the same caliber of lying about a qualification, BUT it is a lie, nonetheless.
And whether you think it is benign or not, my purpose was to alert the poster that in some companies-- the employer will not differentiate between a lie about qualifications, degree, nor the reality of what his true work history is. At my company and a previous company I worked for you-- he would be fired (if he was already in place when the full background check came back) or he would have his offer pulled. PERIOD. So regardless of what you say, or what the poster did and is trying to get justification that he is okay to do this-- it may back fire on him. True it may not, but I can guarantee you if his manager found out or his coworkers-- they would have that niggling suspicion that he may not be the guy that they thought they hired.
Time and tenure spent at one company to his overall qualifications is not irrelevant. Someone working at a company with a skillset for 6 months. Generally speaking, it takes 6 months to even get your feet truly acclimated at any company, get used to their process, get truly involved in that company's projects, etc. It is why most of the companies I have worked for required employees to work a full year before moving onto another internal position-- because let's face it in 6 months you are just really getting fully competent and involved in that company. THAT would be why people tend to not want to hire people who jump from one job to another beyond even just the show of potential instability.
Now, I guess if the poster works low level and low value roles-- this may not mean much. After all one guy working at McDonalds who moves on to say a Chick Fil A would probably become proficient in their job super fast, but I can say in my new role within this new company (although same corporation) has been 7-8 months and I am STILL becoming fully acclimated to everything. I would not say that I am a superior product manager now-- I still have A LOT to learn and would expect a potential employer to view me the same way if I were to apply for another product manager position.
You don't have to include every single job on your resume-- the past 10 years is adequate so older workers should be using a mixture of functional resume with a traditional time line resume-- THAT is not deception no one cares what you did in 1980, and even though I am in my 30s-- I use the combination approach because no one really cares that I audited XYZ for ABC company in 2000-- I mention the experience and standards but that is in a functional area. It is NOT deception-- it is just calling it out different.
What the OP is doing is purposely setting out to deceive based on his perceptions or feedback from a recruiter that he is perceived as a job hopper and ergo he is now making his work experience seem to be in a shorter number of companies versus more. THAT my friend is deception.
Once again, nothing affects his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE which makes the OP's resume as a "deceptive" as liking his prospective employers TOUPEE even if it looks like a squirrel to get an interview. Compliments to a potential boss or that company even if the candidate's personal opinion is negative... THAT my friend is also deception.
In the end, the employer granted him an interview based on his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE.
If he has great references from all the companies, listed and unlisted, even better for him.
BOTH resumes describe an applicant technically EQUAL in qualifications.
With the same number of years of quality work experience and good references to match in BOTH resumes.
The only difference would be an employers erroneously pre-judging him for having worked for ANOTHER company as "Job-hopping"
Nothing harmful at all to his prospective employer, rather it is BENEFICIAL to them when qualifications is used as the final determination rather than unfounded prejudices. Elimination of employer BIAS forces the employer to pay more attention to the candidates QUALIFICATIONS on his resume.
How the OP wrote on his resume doesn't affect his Qualifications or Work experience and that is why he got the interview, because of his credentials.
AGE deception is the SAME thing if a candidate decides to eliminate a company he worked for and SHORTEN some dates on his resume in order to get a 1 st interview instead of being DECLINED by a company which might ILLEGALLY discriminate against him because of his age.
Since you do not boycott and willing to WORK for companies who are "deceptive" enough not to interview applicants based on age or many other prejudices they won't admit to, then it is not wrong to HIRE applicants who play the same game, especially something as TRIVIAL as what the OP did.
Wanting an interview based on for QUALIFACTIONS without being erroneously pre-judged is the same chance every applicant should get.
Once again, I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass pre-conceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
Doing that actually makes the hiring process fairer if qualifications are considered WITHOUT bias.
I'm sure you are happy collecting paychecks from unethical employers who commit far greater sins than than the OP in their hiring practices.
If you are able to work for employers like that, you can work with employees like that too.
Once again, nothing affects his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE which makes the OP's resume as a "deceptive" as liking his prospective employers TOUPEE even if it's not true to get an interview.
Elimination of employer BIAS forces the employer to pay more attention to the candidates QUALIFICATIONS on his resume.
What the OP on his resume doesn't affect his Qualifications or Work experience and that is why he got the interview, because of his credentials.
In the end, the employer granted him an interview based on his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE.
If he has great references from all the companies, listed and unlisted, even better for him.
With the same years of quality work experience and good references to match in BOTH resumes. the only difference would be an employers pre-judging him for having worked for ANOTHER company as "Job-hopping" which would be untrue.
Nothing harmful at all to his prospective employer, rather it is BENEFICIAL to them when qualifications is used as the final determination rather than unfounded prejudices.
AGE deception is the SAME thing if a candidate decides to eliminate a company he worked for and SHORTEN some dates on his resume in order to get a 1 st interview instead of being DECLINED by a company which might ILLEGALLY discriminate against him because of his age.
Since you do not boycott and willing to WORK for companies who are "deceptive" enough not to interview applicants based on age or many other prejudices they won't admit to, then it is not wrong to HIRE applicants who play the same game, especially something as TRIVIAL as what the OP did.
Wanting an interview based on for QUALIFACTIONS without being erroneously pre-judged is the same chance every applicant should get.
Once again, I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass pre-conceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
Doing that actually makes the hiring process fairer if qualifications are considered WITHOUT bias.
I'm sure you are happy collecting paychecks from unethical employers who commit far greater sins than than the OP in their hiring practices.
Seriously Raymond--if you don't get it then I am no longer going to waste my time to try and respond to you.
An employer has the right to choose who they want to work for them as long as they follow the law. Discriminating against age is as wrong as lying on your resume.
If you look at my company we have employees of all ages-- one of our most recent new hires was over the age of 50.
Just because some companies you think are being unethical does not mean that you should be just as unethical. When I have hired, I have tried everything in my power to be ethical and respectful.
I think the OP sounds like a guy just trying to make it-- and I hope for his sake that the stress of wondering if he did is going to come back and crush him will teach him in the future he should be more cautious. More than likely this company would have interviewed him anyhow and one hopes that his misstep will not cost him a job.
Seriously Raymond--if you don't get it then I am no longer going to waste my time to try and respond to you.
An employer has the right to choose who they want to work for them as long as they follow the law. Discriminating against age is as wrong as lying on your resume.
If you look at my company we have employees of all ages-- one of our most recent new hires was over the age of 50.
Just because some companies you think are being unethical does not mean that you should be just as unethical. When I have hired, I have tried everything in my power to be ethical and respectful.
I think the OP sounds like a guy just trying to make it-- and I hope for his sake that the stress of wondering if he did is going to come back and crush him will teach him in the future he should be more cautious. More than likely this company would have interviewed him anyhow and one hopes that his misstep will not cost him a job.
You collect paychecks from employers who make many "unethical" decisions far worse than the OP's little resume "deception."
I'm positive that SOME applicants even in your company's HISTORY were passed over based on age or other personal prejudices of various interviewers.
I hope you don't pretend your company is run by the Mother Theresa of ethics where it's company policy to be 100% honest with all applicants and employees.
If Employees can work FOR Employers who are not 100% honest with them, Employers can hire Employees who play the same game.
As I've said about the OP's situation:
BOTH resumes describe an applicant technically EQUAL in qualifications.
With the same number of years of quality work experience and references to match in BOTH resumes.
The only difference is that 1 resume was designed to deter an employer from erroneously pre-judging him having worked for ANOTHER company as "Job-hopping"
In the end, the employer granted him an interview based on his QUALIFICATIONS and WORK EXPERIENCE.
I hope those companies that judged him erroneously will end up hiring less qualified employees as a result & suffer for it in order to learn their lesson.
On the other hand, I hope those companies which places priority over applicants qualifications and not let their own personal biases interject into the hiring process will thrive.
It's sad that in this economic downturn, old and new prejudices and biases have been enhanced due to the job market being an employer's market.
As a result: Applicants and employees have to learn to adapt to survive.
Once again, your "deception" example doesn't fit with what the OP did.
Not being considered for an interview because of misconceptions and pre-conceivedbiases on the part of employers that cause them to OVERLOOK the qualifications of applicants makes the employer wrong.
I don't blame anyone who attempts to bypass perceptions and biases that aren't true or fair.
Thank you Raymond for your kind words.
I wouldn't say those companies who have misconceptions about my work history is wrong. I fully understand that they prefer a candidate withe comparable skills and experience as mine but stay for the same company.
But the reality is just that ruthless to me. I never left a company voluntarily. They didn't work out or restructured and then laid me off. I'm still young, under 30. But I'm not that young, either. I sacrificed so much in the past 5, 6 years in this area in order to build up my career. Maybe somebody would advise me to change my career. It is simply too blunt to say that! I still believe my potential in this area. A company I used to work for is making money based on my project and product, which I take pride in. Then ironically, I'm still struggling to survive and no one recognizes that I was the primary founder of that product. Is that fair to me?
If companies prejudeged me as a job hopper based on my work history, then it means all doors are closed to me. But I need and have a right to survive! I didn't do anything wrong such as committing a crime. All the pains that I'm suffering today or in the past years, are completely not what I deserve! I'm not a demanding person like those who asks for 6-figure payroll. What I need is only a stable career and decent income to feed me. Is that not the least what I deserve???
What the OP is doing is purposely setting out to deceive based on his perceptions or feedback from a recruiter that he is perceived as a job hopper and ergo he is now making his work experience seem to be in a shorter number of companies versus more. THAT my friend is deception.
I fully understand your point. If I had such a stable career in the past, I would never do that, either.
I saw a lot of my classmates in the university have been promoted at least to a medior level. And people in the same industry who graduated just one year earlier than me (2006, booming market, eh?) is building their names. I started my career when financial crisis began. One year difference makes such a big difference.
Now even I head for a junior position. They would rather hire fresh graduates than me. I remember once I applied for a position. The function content is exactly what I have done several years ago, which was a great success. You know what, the HR says in the voicemail with bitchy tone that "We are not going to invite you because your background is not what we are looking for and we don't see any strong points of you!" I was shocked! Then I called the hiring manager. And he said, "I'm not involved with the screening. But our application committee judges that you had too many jobs, so sorry I can't do anything for you." YOU SEE?
Honesty, I now partially understand why so many muslims in the country I'm living now made troubles in street. Everybody treated by the community as I am, would go ferocious, that's best to say. The only reason that I didn't become a "street terrorist" like they are is because I have a high education as a MSc. If I do something crazy just for venting, then the effort I've made in the past 10 years would be in vain.
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.
