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.
anneerk, i suspect what confuses him is the last employer is noted by unemployment office, and it is still one check/direct deposit to the claimant. The splitting is easily done as all that stuff is run off sophisticated computer systems, and all employers must report quarterly earnings in data format now. We're in a few dozen states, and all of them prorate just as Tn does.
NJ is odd in many ways. If I recall correctly, at one point they were one of a few to collect some ui tax from employees. Few states do.
anneerk, i suspect what confuses him is the last employer is noted by unemployment office, and it is still one check/direct deposit to the claimant. The splitting is easily done as all that stuff is run off sophisticated computer systems, and all employers must report quarterly earnings in data format now. We're in a few dozen states, and all of them prorate just as Tn does.
NJ is odd in many ways. If I recall correctly, at one point they were one of a few to collect some ui tax from employees. Few states do.
Lol, The fact is that there is still responsibilty for the last employer which you originally said there was none.
Not paying ALL the benefits doesn't change the point in my previous arguement.
Hiring an unqualified candidate while re-running the ad is POOR hiring practice.
So you now argue that the OP's company will only pay partial UI benefits to hiring an unqualified employee while running the ad again is a good thing to do???
The company would have expected to pay NO UI benefits based on what you said earlier, but they find out they are responsible for partial... wonderful?
You also claimed that being fired for poor performance exempts the company too... wrong again.
As I repeatedly said, Your suggestion is inefficient and wastes company's time.
If he wants and expects different results, he can improve his offer.
Waiting for that perfect candidate with a lowball offer can take forever.
Not the way in happened in Nj.
Lol, The fact is that there is still responsibilty for the last employer which you said there was none.
Hiring an unqualified candidate while re-running the ad is POOR hiring practice.
So you argue that your company will only pay partial UI benefits to hiring an unqualified employee while running the ad again is a good thing to do???
Your company would have expected to pay NO UI benefits based on what you said earlier, but they find out they are responsible for partial... wonderful?
If he wants and expects different results, he can improve his offer.
Waiting for that perfect candidate with a lowball offer can take forever.
Just to clarify, I don't believe in hiring non-qualified candidates. I'd rather let the position go vacant while I broaden my search.
"Waiting for that perfect candidate with a lowball offer can take forever."
Not in this market. Welcome to the post deep recession world. That barista making your latte might have an MBA. The guy who made your fries at McD's a Bachelors. And the high school grad is upset that those two jobs are now unavailable to him.
In 2005, waiting made no sense..it was a sellers' market.
Now its the best buyers market we've seen in decades.
We need balance, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
"Waiting for that perfect candidate with a lowball offer can take forever."
Not in this market. Welcome to the post deep recession world. That barista making your latte might have an MBA. The guy who made your fries at McD's a Bachelors. And the high school grad is upset that those two jobs are now unavailable to him.
In 2005, waiting made no sense..it was a sellers' market.
Now its the best buyers market we've seen in decades.
We need balance, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Nope, He got 9 applicants for his job ad with those 5 being the best.
That can't simply be dismissed.
That offer is not really competitive with other jobs out there for the best candidates, hence his limited results.
If he wants and expects different results quickly, he can improve his offer.
Waiting for that perfect candidate with a lowball offer can take forever.
It's like someone waiting for the "right seller" who will accept a lowball offer for his car... or selling a car and expecting the "right" buyer to show up.
It depends on the market and whether you have the time to wait for it.
His company is the one that couldn't hold their breath to wait for more applicants.
In this case, the "unqualified" applicant got hired.
#3 and #4 are no good (#3 is likely a know-nothing and bringing a friend to an interview is weird). An inflexible schedule might be a deal-killer for #2, but if the schedule works out, why not? And #1 seems fine for a temporary job; so he's got a long commute? A lot of people have long commutes, and as others have pointed out, it doesn't make sense to move for a temp job.
Who knows if its competitive? If he chose the wrong job site, responses would suffer. The big ones charge more for an ad, but they are read by many times the quantity seeking jobs.
To say the rate was uncompetitive w/o knowing the rate, the unemployment rate locally, the job requirements, etc..is simply luny.
We've often reposted ads in the SAME job board and gotten tremendously different responses..without varying any aspect of the job, pay, requirements,...
Who knows if its competitive? If he chose the wrong job site, responses would suffer. The big ones charge more for an ad, but they are read by many times the quantity seeking jobs.
To say the rate was uncompetitive w/o knowing the rate, the unemployment rate locally, the job requirements, etc..is simply luny.
We've often reposted ads in the SAME job board and gotten tremendously different responses..without varying any aspect of the job, pay, requirements,...
Hmm, the OP said the job is low pay and temporary and got 9 applicants and ridicules the best 4 applicants.
He then hires one of those "unqualified" applicants... maybe his standards are too high?
Now, you are suggesting he placed ads in the wrong places too.
Lol, you are basically saying everything he and his interview team has done is incompetent.
Based on his evidence presented, yes it's not competitive in the job market.
Low pay in this economy beats no pay. I have a cousin who is interviewing and would happily take 40% of her primary previous employer gross pay for a 3 month temp gig with no perm possibilities. she has 25 years of experience, and the agency handling it told her every candidate has 15 or more years apiece. Whoever gets it would still be eligible for food stamps, but still, several with 15 plus years professional experience are trying for a very low wage temp spot.
Welcome to the New Normal.
Kodak and Hostess file for bankruptcy, and if they survive, massive haircuts to pensions will be a formality via Bankruptcy Court. Welcome to the New Normal.
Low pay in this economy beats no pay. I have a cousin who is interviewing and would happily take 40% of her primary previous employer gross pay for a 3 month temp gig with no perm possibilities. she has 25 years of experience, and the agency handling it told her every candidate has 15 or more years apiece. Whoever gets it would still be eligible for food stamps, but still, several with 15 plus years professional experience are trying for a very low wage temp spot.
Welcome to the New Normal.
Kodak and Hostess file for bankruptcy, and if they survive, massive haircuts to pensions will be a formality via Bankruptcy Court. Welcome to the New Normal.
And OP got 9 applicants and hired one of those you say is unqualified.
The OP is telling us what he did and his results.
I am judging HIS actions and decisions by his own words.
None of those applicants are speaking for themselves, so you have even less "evidence" to judge them on their qualifications.
What he has described is his "perceptions" of the applicants and since the guy with least experience was a viable candidate except that he needs to drive 1.5 hrs to work, qualifications aren't that high as to be expected from a low wage temp job.
All of them have faults and since he hired one of them... I'm assuming that person is qualified for that position... if he/she isn't, then he isn't doing his job.
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.
