U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2019, 06:33 PM
 
2,410 posts, read 687,207 times
Reputation: 3394

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
Why is that ridiculous? Out of state applicants are more difficult than in-state for a number of reasons.
Why are they difficult?

Please list the false stereotypes you hold about out of state candidates.

I would think that someone willing to move a long distance to get the job is really really really motivated to be a good employee. After all, they just spent a huge amount of money to move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2019, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,552 posts, read 3,637,492 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg8181 View Post
Why does a resume need an address?
Sometimes itís just obvious. For example if I applied for an out of state job right now it would say

ďXXX at X County Department of XĒ and a currently employed stamp. Only one county in the country has this name, and it holds a pretty big city, so yeah address or not itís obvious what metropolitan area Iím in.

Also I have never put my address on a resume and it has never helped me, or hurt me, as far as I know
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,933 posts, read 8,397,741 times
Reputation: 15523
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell View Post
Why are they difficult?

Please list the false stereotypes you hold about out of state candidates.
I donít hold any false stereotypes. I only hold true stereotypes. Or if I did hold false ones, do you think I would know they are false?

Rather than answer the question you actually asked, I will answer the question you should have asked, which is ďwhy do you think out of state candidates are more difficult?Ē.

Scheduling interviews are dramatically more difficult. Most out of state candidates need extra time to get to the interview, and are generally more demanding on dates/times.

The question of paying for the interview almost inevitably comes up. We will reimburse expenses for and interview for candidates of a certain rank, but not for entry level employees. We are asked by most out of state candidates though. The higher ranking candidates add to our expense.

Same thing for relocation expenses. Out of state candidates cost more.

Start dates. Out of state candidates need additional time to move and get living accommodations arranged, which can also cost the company more.

Longevity and turnover. Out of state candidates are not tied to the area, and are more willing to leave, often resulting in the same opening in a year or three. Sometimes they donít like the area and leave for that reason alone.

Reference checking. With local candidates we often know something about their employers or another common connection and can check references that are not on the candidates list. With out of state employers this is more difficult.

Out of state candidates are generally more flaky than local candidates and just donít respond to phone calls as readily. Admittedly this is an anecdotal judgment on my part.


Quote:
I would think that someone willing to move a long distance to get the job is really really really motivated to be a good employee. After all, they just spent a huge amount of money to move.
Or we paid a huge amount of money to move them.

I am not inherently biased against out of state candidates. As I have mentioned previously, I have been hired across state lines several times, and I have also hired out of state people. It can be successful, but it is objectively more difficult.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Sometimes itís just obvious. For example if I applied for an out of state job right now it would say

ďXXX at X County Department of XĒ and a currently employed stamp. Only one county in the country has this name, and it holds a pretty big city, so yeah address or not itís obvious what metropolitan area Iím in.

Also I have never put my address on a resume and it has never helped me, or hurt me, as far as I know
Our application software requires address as a mandatory field. As I never look at the candidates resume, only the form filled out by the software, I inevitably know where they are located, or at least the address they claim.

That, combined with work history and reference contact info tends to give one a good idea of actual residence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 05:05 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,489 posts, read 62,120,010 times
Reputation: 32153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell View Post
I would think that someone willing to move a long distance to get the job
is really really really motivated to be a good employee.
Once again... your thinking is askew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 12:20 PM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
4,490 posts, read 2,877,828 times
Reputation: 4006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell View Post
Why are they difficult?

Please list the false stereotypes you hold about out of state candidates.

I would think that someone willing to move a long distance to get the job is really really really motivated to be a good employee. After all, they just spent a huge amount of money to move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
I don’t hold any false stereotypes. I only hold true stereotypes. Or if I did hold false ones, do you think I would know they are false?

Rather than answer the question you actually asked, I will answer the question you should have asked, which is “why do you think out of state candidates are more difficult?”.

Scheduling interviews are dramatically more difficult. Most out of state candidates need extra time to get to the interview, and are generally more demanding on dates/times.

The question of paying for the interview almost inevitably comes up. We will reimburse expenses for and interview for candidates of a certain rank, but not for entry level employees. We are asked by most out of state candidates though. The higher ranking candidates add to our expense.

Same thing for relocation expenses. Out of state candidates cost more.

Start dates. Out of state candidates need additional time to move and get living accommodations arranged, which can also cost the company more.

Longevity and turnover. Out of state candidates are not tied to the area, and are more willing to leave, often resulting in the same opening in a year or three. Sometimes they don’t like the area and leave for that reason alone.

Reference checking. With local candidates we often know something about their employers or another common connection and can check references that are not on the candidates list. With out of state employers this is more difficult.

Out of state candidates are generally more flaky than local candidates and just don’t respond to phone calls as readily. Admittedly this is an anecdotal judgment on my part.




Or we paid a huge amount of money to move them.

I am not inherently biased against out of state candidates. As I have mentioned previously, I have been hired across state lines several times, and I have also hired out of state people. It can be successful, but it is objectively more difficult.




Our application software requires address as a mandatory field. As I never look at the candidates resume, only the form filled out by the software, I inevitably know where they are located, or at least the address they claim.

That, combined with work history and reference contact info tends to give one a good idea of actual residence.
You're both right. Depending on the situation, the candidate, etc., you can end up getting both cases from time to time.


For my first job, I had no relo expenses offered, but it was only 200 miles away, I was still out of college, living with my parents, and didn't have any furniture. It was worth it b/c it had higher pay than anything I had at the time, fringe benefits, and was a career job
.
For another job, I had to move on my own as well. It ended up lasting only 7 months, so glad I didn't put down any roots.
.
Yet another one, they paid for moving expenses. I get estimates, they approve it, I pay the money upfront, and they reimburse me within a few months (which I did). As a clause of employment, if I did NOT work there for more than a year, or I left/got fired, then I would be on the hook to pay them back that full amount
.
In the end, moving was a bit of a scary thing, but being unemployed sucked more!


What was said about out-of-state candidates also holds true. However, if you can't get local talent, then you can't get blood from a stone. Is it risky? Yes. But you've got no choice in that situation, but the rewards are very good if/when you do find candidates. Obviously, being from out of town, you need to change up your bennies, pay, perks, and conditions. If the area's any decent, they can always put down roots, develop relationships. Unless you only got a dating puddle, incoming people can settle down. If families have access to decent schools and safe neighborhoods, they'll stick around. Moving is also a big risk for the employee too!
.
Also, you mentioned it, but I never understood the whole song & dance of moving just for a local address. They should be able to piece from your work history, and any background checks where you've been living. I guess it helps you get past "that hump", so I digress? For one of my jobs, the HM had no idea I was out of state. She just assumed I was close by. OTOH, I never lied about it either. It just never came up until the interview (where another interviewer saw that on my resume)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 12:48 PM
 
9,519 posts, read 13,439,344 times
Reputation: 5692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Sometimes itís just obvious. For example if I applied for an out of state job right now it would say

ďXXX at X County Department of XĒ and a currently employed stamp. Only one county in the country has this name, and it holds a pretty big city, so yeah address or not itís obvious what metropolitan area Iím in.

Also I have never put my address on a resume and it has never helped me, or hurt me, as far as I know
Town/City & State should be fine. Why do companies need to know your exact street?


I don't like providing my address, though my resume has it on it. Employers can & do discriminate, there is nothing preventing them from looking @ your house and your neighborhood on google streetview. Perhaps if you live in the 'hood', they can be reluctant to hire you. (It absolutely happens).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,552 posts, read 3,637,492 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg8181 View Post
Town/City & State should be fine. Why do companies need to know your exact street?


I don't like providing my address, though my resume has it on it. Employers can & do discriminate, there is nothing preventing them from looking @ your house and your neighborhood on google streetview. Perhaps if you live in the 'hood', they can be reluctant to hire you. (It absolutely happens).
Thatís a good point, I think street and if applicable, apartment number is excessive. If I was applying for jobs on the other side of town I can still work there, my commute would be hell but Iíd still do it. But I wonder if companies do deny people for living on the other side of town. This is why I hate suburban office complexes, especially in a rich suburb with land values more expensive than what they pay for employees. If Iím applying for out of state, my address definitely doesnít matter, because Iím planning to move anyway.

And if they want something more specific, a ZIP code could work even better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 10:06 PM
 
1,221 posts, read 1,492,738 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
I donít hold any false stereotypes. I only hold true stereotypes. Or if I did hold false ones, do you think I would know they are false?
Rather than answer the question you actually asked, I will answer the question you should have asked, which is ďwhy do you think out of state candidates are more difficult?Ē.
Scheduling interviews are dramatically more difficult. Most out of state candidates need extra time to get to the interview, and are generally more demanding on dates/times.
The question of paying for the interview almost inevitably comes up. We will reimburse expenses for and interview for candidates of a certain rank, but not for entry level employees. We are asked by most out of state candidates though. The higher ranking candidates add to our expense.
Same thing for relocation expenses. Out of state candidates cost more.
Start dates. Out of state candidates need additional time to move and get living accommodations arranged, which can also cost the company more.
Longevity and turnover. Out of state candidates are not tied to the area, and are more willing to leave, often resulting in the same opening in a year or three. Sometimes they donít like the area and leave for that reason alone.
Reference checking. With local candidates we often know something about their employers or another common connection and can check references that are not on the candidates list. With out of state employers this is more difficult.
Out of state candidates are generally more flaky than local candidates and just donít respond to phone calls as readily. Admittedly this is an anecdotal judgment on my part.
Or we paid a huge amount of money to move them.
I am not inherently biased against out of state candidates. As I have mentioned previously, I have been hired across state lines several times, and I have also hired out of state people. It can be successful, but it is objectively more difficult.
Our application software requires address as a mandatory field. As I never look at the candidates resume, only the form filled out by the software, I inevitably know where they are located, or at least the address they claim.
That, combined with work history and reference contact info tends to give one a good idea of actual residence.
Paranoid much? Treating people like garbage?
By the way, "I will relocate" does not equal to "you pay for my relocation expenses".




Quote:
Originally Posted by ackmondual View Post
What was said about out-of-state candidates also holds true. However, if you can't get local talent, then you can't get blood from a stone. Is it risky? Yes. But you've got no choice in that situation, but the rewards are very good if/when you do find candidates. Obviously, being from out of town, you need to change up your bennies, pay, perks, and conditions. If the area's any decent, they can always put down roots, develop relationships. Unless you only got a dating puddle, incoming people can settle down. If families have access to decent schools and safe neighborhoods, they'll stick around. Moving is also a big risk for the employee too!
Some managers opt for an un-talented inexperienced low performing local candidate instead of a good fit from another state. Even for critical high-end jobs. They undermine their own employer with that. There are many excuses to avoid meritocracy, relo is just one of the many. It is part of a general trend. Some corporations don't want to rely on talented people, instead they want to turn morons into experts by corporate training, which doesnt work but doesn't matter. Other cases of picking the less qualified candidates are: diversity hiring, cultural fit obsession, some companies openly advertise to prefer people who have strong personal connections to existing employees... It is just a general hatred for capable people, similar to hatred towards capitalism. Very fashionable these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 01:25 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,933 posts, read 8,397,741 times
Reputation: 15523
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
Paranoid much? Treating people like garbage?
By the way, "I will relocate" does not equal to "you pay for my relocation expenses".
I was asked for a list of reasons as to why out of state candidates were inherently problematic and I replied. That isnít paranoia, it is factual.

Where did I say or imply I treat people like garbage? I have said multiple times that I have hired from out of the area, but I acknowledge some inherent risk.

Letís also be realistic about relocation. For jobs of a certain rank, relocation is expected. In fact, it would be treating a professional like garbage if it were not included. Everybody on this forum complains incessantly about employers being cheap and getting substandard employees as a result, I point out that I am not cheap, and you complain about that. Why donít you take a moment to actually read and comprehend a post before you launch a baseless attack.




Quote:
Some managers opt for an un-talented inexperienced low performing local candidate instead of a good fit from another state. Even for critical high-end jobs. They undermine their own employer with that. There are many excuses to avoid meritocracy, relo is just one of the many. It is part of a general trend. Some corporations don't want to rely on talented people, instead they want to turn morons into experts by corporate training, which doesnt work but doesn't matter. Other cases of picking the less qualified candidates are: diversity hiring, cultural fit obsession, some companies openly advertise to prefer people who have strong personal connections to existing employees... It is just a general hatred for capable people, similar to hatred towards capitalism. Very fashionable these days.
Ah, so you do support hiring talent. As do I. The difference is I am willing to pay for it and I acknowledge the risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 01:34 AM
 
1,350 posts, read 587,699 times
Reputation: 1244
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
The candidates need for money, or housing, or anything else isnít my problem as an employer.
Most candidates work for money -- so that doesn't even need to be considered.

However, as an employer, I def help with housing as much as I can to make sure the transfer to the new state is as smooth as possible. This is with temporary housing and moving costs. It's common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top