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.
Denny, while I respect your opinions as well as your x,y,z analogies it seems you favor companies a little too much. Companies are clearly taking advantage of the job market and mass unemployment. I feel if employers can play hardball and treat workers like investments rather then humans they should expect their employees to do the same. Unless you have complete job security and enjoy your job it makes since to "jump ship". In a market were you can be let go or laid off at any giving time it makes perfect sense to pursue higher pay.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to jump ship if something better comes along. Employers understand why you would do so. They just want to minimize the chances of that happening. I could hire a guy for 50K. But if I know that he made 60K at his last job, I'm going to worry about him leaving as soon as he lands a job that pays 60K. Maybe it takes a year for that to happen. The first three months, I had to wait til he got up to speed and reached his maximum productivity. Now he's gone and I'm back to interviewing. I would much rather hire someone I can feel confident will stick around for at least a few years. At least then, that initial investment I made in him will have been worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober138
So let me ask you...I don't know if you are married or not (and it doesn't matter) but when deciding on someone to be your spouse - should one be "picky" and look for the best possible match...or should one just be more "realistic" and, say, take what they can get?
This is a flawed comparison. If an employer is looking for a new hire, then they obviously need that person. But a person looking for a spouse doesn't need a partner. Therefore, they can get away with being as picky as they want. The worst that happens is they stay single. But a company may discover that it can't complete a project on time, can't hit its revenue target, or can't get any business done without hiring that person. In other words, it's a critical need.
This is a flawed comparison. If an employer is looking for a new hire, then they obviously need that person. But a person looking for a spouse doesn't need a partner. Therefore, they can get away with being as picky as they want. The worst that happens is they stay single. But a company may discover that it can't complete a project on time, can't hit its revenue target, or can't get any business done without hiring that person. In other words, it's a critical need.
Sometimes employers don't really need a candidate either. They may have an open req and they're planning on filling it with an internal candidate as a promo, but HR requirements dictate that they consider the "best" candidates, so they interview external candidates to give the illusion that they're considering all sources.
Sometimes employers don't really need a candidate either. They may have an open req and they're planning on filling it with an internal candidate as a promo, but HR requirements dictate that they consider the "best" candidates, so they interview external candidates to give the illusion that they're considering all sources.
You can never be sure the extent to which a company needs someone. Sometimes, the need isn't urgent. I was merely responding to Tober138's question about when it's appropriate to be picky. Since no one actually needs a spouse, it makes more sense to be picky with respect to that than who you hire for a job.
You can never be sure the extent to which a company needs someone. Sometimes, the need isn't urgent. I was merely responding to Tober138's question about when it's appropriate to be picky. Since no one actually needs a spouse, it makes more sense to be picky with respect to that than who you hire for a job.
A lot of employers are passively looking. A lady may not need another pair of shoes but if she sees a high end shoe in her size on clearance she will jump at it.
A lot of employers have the same mindset. If they see a candidate who is doing exactly what they are doing now with excellent qualifications being severely underpaid they will jump at the deal.
An employer may get alerts from job sites that show the latest resumes that match certain criteria. Or they may let recruiters forward them resumes even though they're not looking to hire right now. Both of these are examples of passively looking. But when you take the time to contact someone or bring them in for an interview, you're no longer being passive.
They can be picky with the high volume of applications in this horrible economy, it's not about who can do the job, but who is the best.
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.
