Do you feel like interviewers/employers are judgmental about resume gaps? (collecting, pay)

[Mystique13]

Come one. Everybody knows that nobody is going to "scold and correct" unprofessional interviewers. This isn't high school or day care. But what I have done is walk out if an interviewer is overly obnoxious, is asking illegal questions (EEOC definition), or just plain hostile.

[Mystique13]

Originally Posted by annerk

....
I don't think asking people what they've been doing--other than "looking for a job"--for a year is harsh or judgmental....

There's nothing wrong with asking and I expect a person with reasonable IQ to ask this question. It's HOW one asks. Many people are biased against the unemployed and it comes through during the interview. They over focus on a gap, and not just ask once and move on. That's why many people shorten gaps and "do other things" to cover them up. An interview serves the purpose of getting hired, not an opportunity to be grilled, debased and criticized. I come to an interview looking for a job, not to be criticized and discouraged. Many during these economic times obviously use interviews to window shop, criticize and raise themselves up ego-wise. I'm not saying everyone who has interviewed me personally, but a significant portion of those people have.
Yes, "it's the employers market" and all that other bla bla bla, but you have to treat people decently. It's common courtesy.

[Mystique13]

I conduct myself professionally at an interview at all times, even when the interviewer is not professional. But I actually expect that the interviewer act professional! It's not an option for them. It's a requirement. If that interviewer doesn't, then I lose interest in the company and I move on to the next opportunity. I always wonder, if someone is rude and unprofessional at an interview then what is that person like to work for EVERY SINGLE DAY? Is he going to be unreasonable, nasty, unpleasable?

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Mystique13

There's nothing wrong with asking and I expect a person with reasonable IQ to ask this question. It's HOW one asks. Many people are biased against the unemployed and it comes through during the interview. They over focus on a gap, and not just ask once and move on. That's why many people shorten gaps and "do other things" to cover them up. An interview serves the purpose of getting hired, not an opportunity to be grilled, debased and criticized. I come to an interview looking for a job, not to be criticized and discouraged. Many during these economic times obviously use interviews to window shop, criticize and raise themselves up ego-wise. I'm not saying everyone who has interviewed me personally, but a significant portion of those people have.
Yes, "it's the employers market" and all that other bla bla bla, but you have to treat people decently. It's common courtesy.

I generally phrase the question along the lines of, "Other than your job hunt, have you been doing anything else relevant to this position since your lay off?"

That gives the candidate the opportunity to tell me about networking, additional training, or relevant volunteer work.

Anyone who finds that question as being "grilled, debased and criticized" isn't someone I want to hire anyway.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Mystique13

I conduct myself professionally at an interview at all times, even when the interviewer is not professional. But I actually expect that the interviewer act professional! It's not an option for them. It's a requirement. If that interviewer doesn't, then I lose interest in the company and I move on to the next opportunity. I always wonder, if someone is rude and unprofessional at an interview then what is that person like to work for EVERY SINGLE DAY? Is he going to be unreasonable, nasty, unpleasable?

Agreed, and I've walked out of more than a few interviews because the interviewer was a jerk or unethical. In one case the interviewer disclosed that they were doing something that was illegal--I RAN out of that one.

[Mystique13]

Originally Posted by annerk

I generally phrase the question along the lines of, "Other than your job hunt, have you been doing anything else relevant to this position since your lay off?"

That gives the candidate the opportunity to tell me about networking, additional training, or relevant volunteer work.

Anyone who finds that question as being "grilled, debased and criticized" isn't someone I want to hire anyway.

There's nothing wrong with that question. But asking someone "why have you been of out of work for 2 years" IS critical. Or "why is it taking you so long to find employment"...Or "what job hunting mistake do you feel you've made lately"... I'm not here or anyone (at the interview) to get "career advice" or be patronized. These are actual questions that I've been asked, and other people have been asked whom I've spoken to. Or asking someone "how's your credit..." Are you serious? Are we here applying for a loan or mortgage? Again, these few questions are just a few illustrations of things being thrown at people looking for work. Of course we have to find ways of dealing with these but you understand why many of us have acquired an even lower morale and just a lower view of "employers."

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Mystique13

There's nothing wrong with that question. But asking someone "why have you been of out of work for 2 years" IS critical. Or "why is it taking you so long to find employment"...Or "what job hunting mistake do you feel you've made lately"... I'm not here or anyone (at the interview) to get "career advice" or be patronized. These are actual questions that I've been asked, and other people have been asked whom I've spoken to.

I agree. I wouldn't ask questions like those, they serve no purpose.

Or asking someone "how's your credit..." Are you serious? Are we here applying for a loan or mortgage?

It's a legitimate question if the position requires you to be bonded or the company has a requirement that people in certain positions maintain good credit--accounting/bookkeeping, signatory authority on checks, cash handling, etc. If the question is relevant due to company policies and is being asked of all applicants, I think it's fair game.

I certainly wouldn't want to get all the way through the process with an applicant (regardless of their current employment status) for a position that requires bonding to find out I can't hire them because of their credit. It wastes everyone's time.

[hopefulone]

Originally Posted by Mystique13

There's nothing wrong with that question. But asking someone "why have you been of out of work for 2 years" IS critical. Or "why is it taking you so long to find employment"...

Like I said in another post. I had a friend that had been unemployed for about a month and the interviewer asked her why she had been out of work for so long. This interview took place about 2 months ago. Come on. It's not like there is a surplus of jobs. It is difficult to get work these days and to act like a month out of work is such a long time is a bit ridiculous considering the economy. I would hate to think what this lady thought about those that have been out of work for a year or longer.

[Mystique13]

Originally Posted by hopefulone

Like I said in another post. I had a friend that had been unemployed for about a month and the interviewer asked her why she had been out of work for so long. This interview took place about 2 months ago. Come on. It's not like there is a surplus of jobs. It is difficult to get work these days and to act like a month out of work is such a long time is a bit ridiculous considering the economy. I would hate to think what this lady thought about those that have been out of work for a year or longer.

I read that post. We have different threads on city data that revolve around dealing with unemployment gaps. The camp is divided into 2 "schools of thought": tell the truth and remain jobless, or whitewash the gap and get hired. I unabashedly belong to the second school as do many people on here. To make a big deal out of one month is ridiculous. And it's because of people like that lady that many whitewash gaps. Nobody is going to continue coming to interviews only to be debased about the gap. If you do then maybe you like it. But those who vehemently bash the "whitewashers" would probably change their minds real quick if they found themselves unable to put food on the table and pay bills. There was an article about a tent community of people who lost their jobs/homes in Lakewood, NJ. There are mobile car communites of people the outskirts just living in their cars.I'm sure the tent and the car people have found "creative ways" to make money that probably break a few laws. It's going to cost society a lot more money to take care of these people, than it is for them just to whitewash a gap, get a job and then move on with life.

[Mystique13]

Originally Posted by annerk

It's a legitimate question if the position requires you to be bonded or the company has a requirement that people in certain positions maintain good credit--accounting/bookkeeping, signatory authority on checks, cash handling, etc. If the question is relevant due to company policies and is being asked of all applicants, I think it's fair game.

I certainly wouldn't want to get all the way through the process with an applicant (regardless of their current employment status) for a position that requires bonding to find out I can't hire them because of their credit. It wastes everyone's time.

That's fine. I do not apply to jobs that require bonding or where there is an expectation that I will be handling money. I apply for jobs where I know credit is not going to be an issue. My credit is bad due to the fact that I have been unemployed for "some time now" so it's pointless to apply to jobs where good credit is needed. It irks me when jobs that DON'T REQUIRE MONEY HANDLING/BONDING require one to have "good credit." Many people in this economy do not have good credit. Some are to blame for it themselves, but others are faced with issues such as illness, spouse's credit issue, bankruptcy and a myriad of other credit problems due to their unemployment. Employers have become very arbitrary in their hiring process. There have been several studies done that disprove that a valid connection can be drawn between credit and future job performance. I'm not talking about the losers who intentionally and carelessly rack up debt and then expect it to not have consequences.

As candidates, we have to rationally look at these employers and figure out what kind of workplace and what kind of treatment we're going to be getting. That's really the bottom line here. You can understand where the employer is coming from, and that fine and good. The employers, however, really couldn't care less about us and were we're coming from in our stance on these issues. In the end the candidates have to do what they have to do to survive. I can't judge people so harshly.