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.
This is EXACTLY what I'm doing right now. After years in the rat race, I'm finally working for myself. I don't rely on any employer. Yep, I do work on about three different projects right now, but I am my own boss. There is no "start time/end time". There is no "talk all nicey nice to your co-workers" because I have no co-workers. There is no "end of year reports" or "monthly/annual evaluations to determine if a raise is warranted or not", there is none of that. None!
I work every single day, but first of all, it's by choice. Second of all, even though it sounds worse to work every single day than just five days a week, I am much, much, much happier doing it this way. In fact, it doesn't even really seem like work. Of course it is work, but I can do that work whenever I want to do it. If I function better at 2am than I do at 7am, then I'm going to do the work at 2am. If I want to take a break, I can take a break. If I want to take the day off, I could take the day off. (I haven't yet, because it doesn't feel like work.) If I need to run an errand, I can do that. If I have to schedule an appointment, I don't have to beg someone to allow me to have the time to do that, I can just do it.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that I did not have to sit there and go through the childish b.s. questions that come from an HR person. I had no interview. I didn't have someone scan my resume for 10 seconds and make a determination. There was no requirement to turn in a resume. There was no "hiring process". There was no, "where do you see yourself in five years" or "tell me one of your weaknesses" or "if you were an animal, what animal would you be, and why?" There was none of that horse puckey. And! There is no one to fire me.
It is so freeing to work for yourself, be your own boss, not answer to anyone. And it's exceptionally freeing not having to deal with any tool shed in the HR department, EVER!
Yep, this is what I'm talking about right here. There are lots of ways to 'play the game'. You can play corporate America's game and follow the rules that they throw out at you, but if you do that, you're playing their game, their way. I've decided that I'm not going to do that. I'm going to set it up so that I'm less dependent on one company's 401k or their stupid-@ssed rules. I still need something in hand - I still work pt for a company that provides those things but I use them as much as they use me. It's more equitable that way, and I feel so much better at work knowing that. If people would just treat employers the way they deserve to be treated - a means to an end - there'd be a lot less butt-hurt.
People just need to accept the new normal. You're completely expendable and disposable. You, as as individual mean absolutely nothing to them, despite whatever corporate holiday greetings or birthday cards you get in your in-box. It's all about profitability. We have a choice: we can either get steamed about it and try and fight a losing battle, or just use the system the inherent freedoms and flexibility it gives us. It might mean less pay and a lot more jumping around, but if you can just choose employers as much as they choose you, I think the laborer will come out on top.
How did she stereotype? She didn't say SHE thought older workers were less valuable (in fact she is worried about her own job in terms of aging) she simply stated what companies think - again, you guys are shooting the messenger rather than the people at the top who actually make these decisions. HR people hire the type of people their company heads tell them to hire. All she is doing here is giving us all a heads up about it.
Wrong again.
I DO make these decisions day in and day out. Age is less important than attitude. At nearly 40, I'm the youngest in some of the areas I hire for - and I've hired every single one of them.
HR does no hiring in my world. They do the admin ****, and get paid appropriately.
Last edited by RoadWarrior12; 02-11-2014 at 06:09 PM..
It matters because the job market is competitive. People are always trying to find the best deal they can get - the best value they can get. If a farmer has a choice between a person who can pick 40 bushels of apples a day and a person who can pick only 3/4 that amount, they'll probably be willing to take the chance on the first picker, even if he lives 30 miles or more from the farm. But if the second guy can pick that same amount, then they're going to pick the guy who has a higher statistical probability of making it to work on time.
Yea, but I was talking about one's period of unemployment. Those analogies don't apply. The logic of skipping over people who've been unemployed for 6 months is all about making inferences from how that person chooses to conduct their life. "Gaps" are somehow a naughty word with respect to resumes. They supposedly mean that someone is lazy and unproductive for not choosing to be employed for every waking moment of their life.
In my opinion, as long as someone can show that they are smart and were assiduous and productive whenever they were last employed, it shouldn't matter whether their last stint of employment was 1 week ago or 2 years. Some people are naturally good workers even if they don't choose to work all the time. Some people have that choice. If they inherited $100,000 from their parents and at the same time got laid off, they have the means to sit around and wait until a great job opportunity comes along. But with HR depts controlling their life, they have to get employed as soon as possible just to appease the dolts who don't want to see "gaps" on resumes of applicants. Yea, so a person who was making tons of money and got laid off has to take up a $12/hr temp job a.s.a.p., even though it's not a financial necessity for him, just to appease the HR depts of the world. Ridiculous.
Yea, but I was talking about one's period of unemployment. Those analogies don't apply. The logic of skipping over people who've been unemployed for 6 months is all about making inferences from how that person chooses to conduct their life. "Gaps" are somehow a naughty word with respect to resumes. They supposedly mean that someone is lazy and unproductive for not choosing to be employed for every waking moment of their life.
In my opinion, as long as someone can show that they are smart and were assiduous and productive whenever they were last employed, it shouldn't matter whether their last stint of employment was 1 week ago or 2 years. Some people are naturally good workers even if they don't choose to work all the time. Some people have that choice. If they inherited $100,000 from their parents and at the same time got laid off, they have the means to sit around and wait until a great job opportunity comes along. But with HR depts controlling their life, they have to get employed as soon as possible just to appease the dolts who don't want to see "gaps" on resumes of applicants. Yea, so a person who was making tons of money and got laid off has to take up a $12/hr temp job a.s.a.p., even though it's not a financial necessity for him, just to appease the HR depts of the world. Ridiculous.
This is EXACTLY what I'm doing right now. After years in the rat race, I'm finally working for myself. I don't rely on any employer. Yep, I do work on about three different projects right now, but I am my own boss. There is no "start time/end time". There is no "talk all nicey nice to your co-workers" because I have no co-workers. There is no "end of year reports" or "monthly/annual evaluations to determine if a raise is warranted or not", there is none of that. None!
I work every single day, but first of all, it's by choice. Second of all, even though it sounds worse to work every single day than just five days a week, I am much, much, much happier doing it this way. In fact, it doesn't even really seem like work. Of course it is work, but I can do that work whenever I want to do it. If I function better at 2am than I do at 7am, then I'm going to do the work at 2am. If I want to take a break, I can take a break. If I want to take the day off, I could take the day off. (I haven't yet, because it doesn't feel like work.) If I need to run an errand, I can do that. If I have to schedule an appointment, I don't have to beg someone to allow me to have the time to do that, I can just do it.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that I did not have to sit there and go through the childish b.s. questions that come from an HR person. I had no interview. I didn't have someone scan my resume for 10 seconds and make a determination. There was no requirement to turn in a resume. There was no "hiring process". There was no, "where do you see yourself in five years" or "tell me one of your weaknesses" or "if you were an animal, what animal would you be, and why?" There was none of that horse puckey. And! There is no one to fire me.
It is so freeing to work for yourself, be your own boss, not answer to anyone. And it's exceptionally freeing not having to deal with any tool shed in the HR department, EVER!
Amen... Reading posts like yours is uplifting... Thank you
Employers have always discriminated against people in employment decisions based on subjective criteria.
For example, you are more likely to get a job if:
You have a firm handshake and good eye contact
Graduated from a top notch school
Had a High GPA
Had a certain number of years of experience (Not too few or too many)
Talked about accomplishments in your past vs. tasks
Seemed likable
Etc. Etc.
But of course you could not full fill any of the criteria above and be one of the most dynamic and successful employees they ever hired. But historically if you did not have the things above for the most sought after employers and jobs, you never had a chance to prove to them you are great.
How is the recent fad: age discrimination, preference for local candidates, and discrimination against the long term unemployed, any different than the list above, which has been selection criteria for years and years?
Last edited by I'm Retired Now; 02-12-2014 at 07:16 AM..
I DO make these decisions day in and day out. Age is less important than attitude. At nearly 40, I'm the youngest in some of the areas I hire for - and I've hired every single one of them.
HR does no hiring in my world. They do the admin ****, and get paid appropriately.
She works for what sounds like a corporation, which I'm sure is different. Again, she is telling us what goes on in the corporate world SHE is in, of course it doesn't apply to every business owner. All you have to do is watch the news to see that many, many big companies ARE and have been discriminating against the long term unemployed, as an example she mentioned. All this woman is doing is telling us about the current employment climate, where companies have the upper hand and have their choice of hundreds of people. She is only confirming what many of the unemployed have long suspected is true. You can blame OP if it makes you feel better about it, but like I said in my earlier post, if you really want to effect change, attacking her isn't the way to do it. The way you are behaving as a business owner and in your hiring practices IS one way to though, so kudos to you for that.
4) After a key word search identifies the top 50 resumes, each resume gets about 10 seconds. You are in the reject pile if you don't fit these criteria:
* Live within 30 miles of the job
* Have training or work experience doing the same type of work.
* Show upward mobility
* Show accomplishments that showed you did more than the job description
* Attended professional development in your field.
* Have been employed in the last 4 months. (We don't bother with the long term unemployed in most cases unless they come through an employee referral.)
* Appear to be currently or recently making about the salary we are going to pay. (90% of our applicants are under or over qualified.)
What do you think. Fellow HR or hiring managers, do you agree? Or want to challenge or add to my list?
I'll challenge you.
I've lived more than 30 miles from a potential job: still got the job.
I've had NO upward mobility in 20+ years and yet always get hired when I change employers. In fact, my current position is the first one in my entire career where I may be able to flip from administrative to managerial. Never really desired to before, but my new job is much more challenging and interesting so I'm actively pursuing the flip.
I've done no professional development whatsoever other than self-training on various softwares as needed.
I was unemployed for 11 months in 2009 - interviewed with three different companies and was hired practically on the spot with the last one.
I once made close to six figures and yet still got a job (in a different state) with ease. Took a paycut, yes, but COL was also much less in my new location. I was grossly overqualified for my current job, but I took it and have been very pleased with my time here and the growth potential that has been afforded me by my boss, who knew full well I was overqualified and wanted to make sure she kept me by challenging me.
So yes, I can see how those things may work in general, but they are generalizations, not the rules.
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.
