How to convince potential employer you will really relocate (alternatives, interviewer, applications)

[lifeexplorer]

We can argue to death what is legal and what is illegal. Unless you are looking for opportunities to sue the employer, it's better focus your energy on how not to volunteer those information.

[confusedasusual]

Originally Posted by groar

those are both examples of questions that were clearly being asked in order to discriminate. and it's against women, not against parents, incidentally.

regardless, that does not make the QUESTIONS illegal, only the intent to discriminate.

see my post above, the EEOC website is perfectly clear that the only questions that are illegal are ones about disability. the other ones are just a bad, bad idea to ask, because they can be used as evidence of discrimination.

How do we know the OP is not a woman?

How is it EVER appropriate or ethical for an employer to deny someone a job based on the fact that they have kids who may not adjust to a relocation? What bearing does that have on the OP's ability to do the work?

If you want to dice out how the OP could PROVE discrimination, he/she would have to pick a pre-defined class. It does not mean, however, that outside of this class these practices are a) strictly legal, b) in any way ethical or c) fair.

I think this is territory for a whole new thread and again, I apologize to the OP because so many on here seem intent on protecting an employer who, at the very least, is asking very shady and ridiculous questions of a highly qualified candidate. I stand by my assertion that you don't want to work for anyone like that. But I do appreciate the debate-- it is really interesting to see ho peoplw react when these sorts of questions come up. Now back to the original topic.

[groar]

i don't think it's appropriate or ethical to ask questions about a protected status. it's also very, very stupid, as i have pointed out repeatedly. i am not trying to protect anyone. i don't think employers should ask these kinds of questions. for their own sake and the applicants' sake.

i am just pointing out that it's not ILLEGAL. what you said was incorrect. there is not a law against asking any question in an interview or application except questions about disability. that's all.

and i only just now learned that parenthood/family status is not a protected class under the EEOC, but it's not. it's a thorny area when gender discrimination factors into it, but it's not a protected class. that is also a fact, not a moral judgment. being legal doesn't make something right.

and now let's get back on topic so i can have the last word :P

[Just_the_facts]

Originally Posted by groar

employers are allowed to ask if you have kids, and they can ask anything they like about your kids. they are just not allowed to make their decision based on whether you have kids. so asking is a very stupid thing to do, but it is legal. that goes for most protected statuses except for, i believe, health/disability.

i dunno, while i get frustrated running up against the barriers that long distance jobseekers face, i can understand why employers would be concerned. they don't want to hire someone and then have them change their mind before they start (after the employer has already cut all the other candidates loose), or worse, after they move and have started work.

i don't usually advocate lying (beyond the lies everyone is kind of forced to say in interviews, like why you left a cruddy job or what your biggest weakness is), but in this case maybe it does make sense to say you have family in the area. that seems to have worked for me, although in my case it's true.

Actually, whether or not you have children is not a protected class.

[groar]

Originally Posted by Just_the_facts

Actually, whether or not you have children is not a protected class.

i thought it was too, and it is for housing, but not for employment. see the eeoc link i posted on the last page. it explicitly states that being a parent/caregiver is not covered.

issues to do with children can overlap with gender, which is a protected class. but having kids in itself is not as far as employment is concerned.

these are the protected classes for employment, straight from the eeoc:race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information.

[Rabrrita]

Originally Posted by Soilworker1986

I bet the unemployed are getting sick and tired of hearing this too.

There's simply no way to win these days. The so called "employment experts" on here bash the unemployed for being unable/not willing to move for a job. but then you have posts like this which proceed to tell us that even if someone is willing to move, they won't hire anyone living out of the area. For me personally, I'm not going to move without a job lined up. It's expensive to move in the first place, and even if you have thousands of dollars saved up, it could take months, if not longer, to find a job. I guess in the end, anyone who's unemployed living in a depressed area is screwed because of the mentality of people like the above.

I never said that I wouldn’t hire the person. I stated that due to the many other applicants who said the same thing but didn’t fulfill their part, we have been trained by those prospective employees to be suspicious of such promises. This has nothing to do with the employer, as it’s the past applicants who brought this on.

If you want to bash employers and business owners, have at it. However in doing so, make sure you’re not throwing out your dislike at any statement because it makes you feel good. As shown in this case, your just yapping that same old tired tune we've heard a million times before, while forgetting, my intent was to HELP the person by explaining what his fellow job seekers have done to cause this issue.

[Wry_Martini]

A relocation package can be quite expensive for an employer, so it's cheaper if they go with a local candidate (assuming its employer paid relo).

If they fly out out for the interview, however, ask if you can stay over the weekend (at your expense) so you can check out the area, get an idea for cost of living, look at some apartments, etc. I was able to do this, and it was one of the things that helped convince them I was not just willing, but excited to relocate.

[limbo24]

Originally Posted by Rabrrita

Understand that we have been burnt many times in the past. We are skeptical because of the many who we did accept their reassurance but ended up holding an empty promise. So, you have to not overcome the normal distant candidate issues, but also the past history of those who messed it up for you.

Try this, make sure you know just about everything you need to know about the area including schools, traffic and shopping. When asked questions about your commitment, you need to response as you are, but also throw in how the kids appear to like ABC school, and the family as a whole likes the area. Make it appear they have also came on their own to look. You need them to see you as having one leg already there. If you are there in the new place and in person, make mention of the house hunting and lay a bit of BS along the lines of a possible other job interview or connections.

If you are doing all this long distance via telephone or internet, you’re already behind the eight ball as the other person is a living breathing body in front of them. You may have to figure a way to get that face to face to improve your chances.

Face to face in-person signals a commitment that just doesn’t come across via Skype or a speakerphone.

Any additional tips for a single 24 year old who would be looking for his first job in his field? Because the school, house, family, and other opportunities stuff isn't really something I could talk about. Or could I talk about being interested in additional studies in a nearby school? Hmmm. But maybe an employer would be turned off by that.

Advice? What specifically can I say in person or otherwise to reassure someone who has been burned?

[whatisthedealwith]

At my company we have a policy that we do not accept resumes/CVs with addresses in the initial intake procedure. We got badly sued a few years ago when we chose a local candidate vice one who lived out of the area. The candidate claimed that our hiring practices were discriminatory (the candidate happened to be a person of color and we hired another person of color but they were of a different ethnic group than the candidate) but really what it came down to were several questions asked in the interview about relocation. The candidate happened to speak about his roots in a "bad" neighborhood, and his experiences as a person of color. He claimed that because he came from that area, we chose to hire someone local because basically we were scared.

He won his case. Yes, he picked a protected class to dispute the issue, but that wasn't really the issue. Employers need to be super careful about asking things that are not job related.

[groar]

who the hell doesn't put their address on their resume? i mean besides lifeexplorer.

do you specify in job postings that resumes with addresses will not be considered? because that's completely bizarre and you're eliminating a massive chunk of your applicant pool if you don't.