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.
How do you reassure future employers that you will actually relocate? It has come down to me and a local candidate and the employer has picked the local--twice. They even tell me that I'm a better fit and they'd hire me--if I were local. Ugghhh. I seem to interview very well, have the experience and the skill-set, great rapport, etc. I also don't hide that I'm out of state with fake mail boxes or cell numbers or anything. During the interview process, I'm often asked things like....am I sure I want to relocate? Do I have kids and how will they react (didn't think this one was legal, but I do try to reassure the interviewer)? Do I have family in the area? Will I pay my own way? (yes, I will). Do I realize that the pay is lower since I'm moving from the DC area to the South? (yeah, I do) I mean, seriously, how much reassurance do they need?
I am committed to moving, but I can't do it without having a job lined up.
Has anyone else experienced this? If so, do you have any advice?
Factoring in someone's age and sex is completely different from factoring a person's current location. Yes an employee can be fired if s/he doesn't show up everyday and on time. But the employer just wasted a lot of time and money on that person. Also due to hiring freeze that position may have to remain unfilled. A lot of things can go wrong with a new hire. You can not blame a company for wanting to avoid potential problems such as the person may not relocate as promised, or doesn't like the new city and wants to go back.
Don't get me wrong, I actually relocated more than once for work. Happens offen at my job. But I seen people move, hate their new city, put in for a transfer or just quit. There was this one guy who lived 2 hours away. Didn't want to move because he didn't want his kids to switch schools. On his first day he wanted to start working from home Request denied and he quit.
I think where you currently live is relevant. Unless the job requires a rare skill, it's less hassle to hire locally then hope the person moves as promised and then stays put.
I work for the federal government. In the vast majority of cases, we consider individuals from ALL parts of the country to fill our jobs. We are not allowed to limit jobs to the local commuting area unless the job is also limited to current employees of a certain organization (only people who work at the HQ for example can be considered and no one else.) It is the right of a US citizen to apply for federal employment. If you limit jobs supposedly open to "All US Citizens" to US Citizens only living in Peoria, you get cases filed against the employer, particularly if there is a veteran involved. These cases are most often settled in favor of the applicant.
Because federal jobs in the field often have such a connection to DC, and because the DC commuting area includes places as far away as West Virginia, it would be foolish to draw a line in the sand and say "nope, we only want people from these three zip codes." Where I work now we actually have policy in place saying we CANNOT announce jobs that are limited geographically. We also have policy that says we do not offer relocation below a certain grade level. If someone wants to relocate, its on them. We don't second guess what they say.
When I worked in the corporate world for a large fortune 500 company, we struck down policy limiting where our applicants came from geographically. It opened up the pool of talent and we got to hire the people who were the best qualified, not just the closest.
Its interesting to me that people want to argue this so much in favor of the employer worrying about whether or not you can get to work. To me, its a slippery slope. If your employer does not pay for your transportation to and from work, the employer has zero business drawing conclusions about what you will and will not do when you are not actually AT work. Its a logical leap for an employer to say something like "That person rents their place. I don't want to hire a renter as they haven't put down roots in this area. I want a person who owns a house. That means they will be more likely stick around for awhile and that is good for me." Its like the 1950s when it was widely believed that having a spouse and kids meant you were "more stable" and therefore a better worker.
Culture is shifting. Hopefully the OP will find an employer with a more progressive way of thinking in their desired location.
I work for the federal government. In the vast majority of cases, we consider individuals from ALL parts of the country to fill our jobs. We are not allowed to limit jobs to the local commuting area unless the job is also limited to current employees of a certain organization (only people who work at the HQ for example can be considered and no one else.) It is the right of a US citizen to apply for federal employment. If you limit jobs supposedly open to "All US Citizens" to US Citizens only living in Peoria, you get cases filed against the employer, particularly if there is a veteran involved. These cases are most often settled in favor of the applicant.
Because federal jobs in the field often have such a connection to DC, and because the DC commuting area includes places as far away as West Virginia, it would be foolish to draw a line in the sand and say "nope, we only want people from these three zip codes." Where I work now we actually have policy in place saying we CANNOT announce jobs that are limited geographically. We also have policy that says we do not offer relocation below a certain grade level. If someone wants to relocate, its on them. We don't second guess what they say.
The Federal Government isn't a private company. Just as well however, I bet a State Governments would hire state residents for their positions before out-of-state residents, assuming all else is equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual
Its interesting to me that people want to argue this so much in favor of the employer worrying about whether or not you can get to work. To me, its a slippery slope. If your employer does not pay for your transportation to and from work, the employer has zero business drawing conclusions about what you will and will not do when you are not actually AT work. Its a logical leap for an employer to say something like "That person rents their place. I don't want to hire a renter as they haven't put down roots in this area. I want a person who owns a house. That means they will be more likely stick around for awhile and that is good for me." Its like the 1950s when it was widely believed that having a spouse and kids meant you were "more stable" and therefore a better worker.
It's not that people are arguing in favor of it, rather people understand the logic behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual
Culture is shifting.
Perhaps, but at this time it's still the norm. So the very slow change in the culture does nothing for us in the mean time.
Last edited by 313Weather; 05-26-2013 at 09:16 AM..
It's not that people are arguing in favor of it, rather people understand the logic behind it.
Perhaps, but at this time it's still the norm. So the very slow change in the culture shift does nothing for us in the mean time.
exactly.
like it or not, think it's right or not, if you're job searching long distance you WILL be asked about your relocation plans at some point by most employers. it's important for people to anticipate these questions and know why the employer is asking them so they can answer them properly.
as i've mentioned more than once, i'm looking for jobs hundreds of miles from where i live now. i'd love it if employers stopped caring about location and just looked at my qualifications! but that's not happening any time soon.
The Federal Government isn't a private company. Just as well however, I bet a State Governments would hire state residents for their positions before out-of-state residents.
It's not that we agree with it, rather we understand the logic behind it.
Perhaps, but at this time it's still the norm. So the very slow change in the culture shift does nothing for us in the mean time.
PA is the only state government I am familiar with and they WOULD hire out of state residents, but they gave them a 6mo grace period to establish residency in the state. They did not restrict where in the state that residence could be established.
There is no logic behind this unless you are an employer (or an employee) who really thinks that where one chooses to live has bearing on performance. I have many friends who are "geographic bachelors" living in one state and working in another just due to economic necessity.
We are all residents of the same country. A Pittsburgh resident who wants to move to Mobile with a great skill set should not be seen as taking a job away from a "local." That idea just boggles my mind. Why wouldn't an employer WANT the most talented people? What if the applicant graduated from Harvard and was brilliant in their field? You are going to deny them a job because they need to move their family? Its this kind of thinking that shoots industry in the foot.
like it or not, think it's right or not, if you're job searching long distance you WILL be asked about your relocation plans at some point by most employers. it's important for people to anticipate these questions and know why the employer is asking them so they can answer them properly.
as i've mentioned more than once, i'm looking for jobs hundreds of miles from where i live now. i'd love it if employers stopped caring about location and just looked at my qualifications! but that's not happening any time soon.
But if this is happening TO YOU and you agree that it is absurd and has nothing to do with your ability to perform your work, why are you defending it by saying "yeah, I understand this silly arbitrary rule that is preventing me from doing what I am capable of and want to do?"
I think that was the OP's point. He/she is fed up with employers being stupid. Several have jumped on the bandwagon defending why the employer might be acting this way. Why take that side?
I don't know what you do or want to do, but why don't you start targeting larger employers with branches in different cities or federal jobs?
a person's performance can be irrelevant if they are constantly missing and late for work, if they work for 6 months and then quit because they want to move back where they came from, or if they accept a job and then never make the move to start it.
if someone plans to live in one area and do a very long distance commute where they live part of the week in their job location, then they can TELL THE INTERVIEWER THAT.
i do think it is stupid to dismiss out of town applicants out of hand. i don't think anyone is arguing that. nor is anyone arguing that it takes jobs away from local applicants. but employers are concerned about the issues that arise with someone moving or making a very long commute, and they want to be reassured that those issues will not be coming up. i don't think that's so crazy or irrational.
PA is the only state government I am familiar with and they WOULD hire out of state residents, but they gave them a 6mo grace period to establish residency in the state. They did not restrict where in the state that residence could be established.
There is no logic behind this unless you are an employer (or an employee) who really thinks that where one chooses to live has bearing on performance. I have many friends who are "geographic bachelors" living in one state and working in another just due to economic necessity.
We are all residents of the same country. A Pittsburgh resident who wants to move to Mobile with a great skill set should not be seen as taking a job away from a "local." That idea just boggles my mind. Why wouldn't an employer WANT the most talented people? What if the applicant graduated from Harvard and was brilliant in their field? You are going to deny them a job because they need to move their family? Its this kind of thinking that shoots industry in the foot.
Again, you're failing to see the logic.
Fact of the matter is to most employers, it is less risky to hire a person that's local than it is to hire one that's non-local. The non-local would be less likely to ask for a relocation package, would be less likely to have transportation problems as they may have other means of getting to work on time living closer to the job and would be less likely to have something go wrong that leads up to them not being able to relocate at all once offered the job.
It has nothing to do with taking away jobs from local people.
I'm not agreeing that the logic is sound, but that is the norm.
This is all compounded to the 5th degree in a god awful economy like this where there are likely tons of local candidates who are just as qualified for the open positions as there are non-local candidates (with a few exceptions of course).
And as far as your friends in who live in different states, I can see an exception to that as well in places like the NE United States, where the transit infrastructure is good and it's simply cheaper for everyone to live outside the big cities (I.E., people who work in Manhattan living in/commuting from Connecticut or New Jersey).
But if this is happening TO YOU and you agree that it is absurd and has nothing to do with your ability to perform your work, why are you defending it by saying "yeah, I understand this silly arbitrary rule that is preventing me from doing what I am capable of and want to do?"
I think that was the OP's point. He/she is fed up with employers being stupid. Several have jumped on the bandwagon defending why the employer might be acting this way. Why take that side?
I don't know what you do or want to do, but why don't you start targeting larger employers with branches in different cities or federal jobs?
like i said, i HAVE to understand why employers are doing these things so i can respond to them. i've applied to a lot of different types and sizes of employers and i haven't seen any patterns as to who asks about my location and who doesn't. the vast majority of them do. and i don't know how many of my resumes got tossed because of my location before anyone spoke to me. THAT is stupid but i don't think anyone you're arguing with right now is advocating that.
i also happen to have a very solid plan to move that i am very sure about. i know that, but potential employers don't. for all they know, i have no idea what the areas i'm targeting are like, i haven't given thought to the logistics of moving, i don't know what the cost of living is in the area therefore i don't know what kind of lifestyle i can live on the pay, etc etc. of course they want to clear these things up before they consider me. of course i wish they would just trust that i've thought things out but really, why should they? they don't know me. but once i'm over that hurdle, i should be over it. no "oh you were more qualified but we disqualified you because of this factor we already knew about and you already addressed."
a person's performance can be irrelevant if they are constantly missing and late for work, if they work for 6 months and then quit because they want to move back where they came from, or if they accept a job and then never make the move to start it.
if someone plans to live in one area and do a very long distance commute where they live part of the week in their job location, then they can TELL THE INTERVIEWER THAT.
i do think it is stupid to dismiss out of town applicants out of hand. i don't think anyone is arguing that. nor is anyone arguing that it takes jobs away from local applicants. but employers are concerned about the issues that arise with someone moving or making a very long commute, and they want to be reassured that those issues will not be coming up. i don't think that's so crazy or irrational.
If a person is constantly missing or late for work they could just as easily be for a host of reasons. Last week I had to work on a suit from and employee who had been removed because of attendance issues. This person lived 3 miles from the workplace. The commute was not the problem. When this person was hired, the employer could not have accurately predicted whether or not this would be a good employee based on proximity to work or any other measurable item.
Anyone can work for 6 months and quit for any reason. Got an elderly parent? Yep, you might quit to take care of them. Going through a divorce? Yep, you might quit and move away or be out of work a lot. Got allergies? Yep, you could quit and move to the desert. Employers cannot just screen out EVERYONE based on what they THINK MIGHT POSSIBLY happen. No one would have a job. Likewise, these things can happen during the course of employment. You might need to move far away to buy a house you can afford, inherit the family farm and decide to relocate there, etc. Your car could die and you might have trouble repairing it. ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN AND DO HAPPEN to locals as well as out of towners.
And, you certainly do not have to volunteer information about your commute in the interview. Where I work, managers are prohibited from asking. If someone asked me, I would say "you never have to worry about me getting to work. I am very interested in this position and I guarantee that will not be an issue." And leave it at that.
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.
Request denied and he quit.
