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.
There are ways to get around this a little. Though probably not in the case of application software that is coded to automatically screen out the unemployed. If a job listing just ask for a resume and not an application, then you might be able to work around this bias some.
First, rewrite your resume to emphasize your skills instead of dates of employment and, if you indicate dates of employment, use years instead of months. So, if you were last employed on January of 2012, just get rid of the January and write down 2012.
Second, write down volunteer experience or anything else similar you were doing. There is no need to indicate it was unpaid as that is not the employer's business.
Third, if the listing allows you to mail out a resume, consider doing that instead. However, do NOT put your resume directly under your cover letter. Instead, insert a really good work sample or a letter of recommendation that you have. Then put the resume underneath all other documents. That way, the employer will read your work samples and letter of recommendations first and, as a result, may have a more open mind when they see your employment gap on your resume.
Fourth, target small businesses who are not officially advertising and do not have an online application system. i know many recommend against "pounding the pavement," so you can instead mail or e-mail a letter of interest with a resume, work sample, and letters of recommendation. Such employers are less apt to discriminate against the long-term unemployed should they hire, as they tend to receive far fewer applications than the Googles and Walmarts.
This will never change unless our goverment steps in and essentially forces companies to hire those who have been out of work the longest. Corporate "rights" be dammed, the rights of people to be able to have a job should come FIRST, and it's high time that all of us put some intense pressure on our elected representatives to start implementing some changes to take care of this problem, as it sure isn't going away on its own.
I find the concept of "corporate rights" interesting. In fact, incorporation is a privilege granted by the government and, at one time, it was not easy to obtain as it was regarded as a privilege. The requesting business had to show it was in the public interest for them to be allowed to incorporate.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57822
The government has no business telling companies who they can hire, as long as the employer is not breaking any laws by discriminating against someone in a protected class. Even if the long-term unemployed were made a protected class, it would still not prevent hiring someone else that was better qualified. The only way the government could help would be to create jobs as was done after the depression in the 1920s, with programs to hire people to do public works projects. That wouldn't work today, first the government doesn't have the money, and second, today's unemployed people would not like to take a job digging ditches.
The government has no business telling companies who they can hire, as long as the employer is not breaking any laws by discriminating against someone in a protected class. Even if the long-term unemployed were made a protected class, it would still not prevent hiring someone else that was better qualified. The only way the government could help would be to create jobs as was done after the depression in the 1920s, with programs to hire people to do public works projects. That wouldn't work today, first the government doesn't have the money, and second, today's unemployed people would not like to take a job digging ditches.
Well even if the government had the money (keep in mind people/countries are still more than willing to lend the US money), it's just not politically practical. We're living in a time period where any type of government spending that doesn't involve War or SS/Medicare is considered bad.
And while I'm sure not all of the jobs involved digging ditches, even if they did, there's equipment now that makes the work a lot easier.
The article is a joke because I was unemployed for 12 months and found a job. Someone else i know was unemployed for 8 months and found a job. Another guy was unemployed for 16 months and was able to find a full-time job.
The article is a joke because I was unemployed for 12 months and found a job. Someone else i know was unemployed for 8 months and found a job. Another guy was unemployed for 16 months and was able to find a full-time job.
The article doesn't say its impossible to find a job if your long-term unemployed. Rather, it's a study showing that employers are much less likely to respond to applications from the long-term unemployed than to those not long-term unemployed. I suspect that networking may be a way to get a job if you are long term unemployed.
The article doesn't say its impossible to find a job if your long-term unemployed. Rather, it's a study showing that employers are much less likely to respond to applications from the long-term unemployed than to those not long-term unemployed..
Precisely correct. IMO, we should be paying slightly higher weekly UC at the start of the first 26 weeks, with lesser amounts per tier, as people would be more aggressively searching for the less than perfect job from day 1 to avoid the lower paying UC later, and that would likely mean fewer long-term unemployed, with a slightly more competitive market amongst shorter-term unemployed.
Precisely correct. IMO, we should be paying slightly higher weekly UC at the start of the first 26 weeks, with lesser amounts per tier, as people would be more aggressively searching for the less than perfect job from day 1 to avoid the lower paying UC later, and that would likely mean fewer long-term unemployed, with a slightly more competitive market amongst shorter-term unemployed.
It don't matter how aggressive someone is if there are no jobs to apply to on a daily basis.
Read that article in the Atlantic yesterday. Sad to see that you have a better chance of getting a job with low duration of unemployment + no or few skills relevant to the job than if you have high duration of unemployment + skills relevant to the job. It's quite the vicious cycle for the long term unemployed. It's like it doesn't even help much to gain or have the job relevant skills since you'll get tossed aside simply by virtue of being unemployed so long.
On the other hand, I know some people who thought that many jobs were beneath them and sat on their laurels while collecting unenjoyment for a very long period of time. They refused to take "any" job because it wasn't up to their standards. Part of me feels, "you got what you deserve".
I took any job, even part time jobs, doubled up, tripled up and even at one point, quadrupled up on some part time jobs just so I could say, "I have been working this entire time". This was two years ago...even then I knew, being out of work, not working at all, doesn't look good. It never has.
And then they'll be told that their last jobs were not relevant or recent enough for the industry. I think some people (not everyone, obviously) are worried about that happening---I know I am.
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.
