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.
Two people (female or male), have the same qualifications/experience and education are applying for a job. They both fit the requirements for the job equally. One person is already employed while the other person is not. Which person has the best chance of being called for an interview?
I hear some people say that companies would rather interview, or even hire, someone who is already employed. If that is the case, how many unemployed people out there are getting passed over? Not a good way to lower an unemployment rate for an area! Some companies and employment agences will "shy away" from a person who has been unemployed for more than 3 months. Well, in our economy right now, there are tons of people who have been unemployed for at least 3 months and more.........what are they suppose to do about getting a job?
Who would I have the more tendancy to call for interview......the unemployed person! I don't really care why the employed person is looking for a different job, the unemployed person hasn't got a job period. The employed person has an income which is most likely to be much higher than unemployed benefits!
Comments........
Well, hypothetically speaking, my employer would probably prefer I interview both of them (although I don't make hiring decisions at present). Then I would probably offer the job to the person who stood out more. If everything was equal, then I probably would be more inclined to offer the job to the unemployed person.
As the saying goes, you've got to have a job to get a job.
But there are plenty of predatory employers out there too, who have an attitude just as OP described--they prey on people they assume are desperate enough to grovel for whatever paltry crumbs an employer is willing to dole out.
Typically, a hiring manager is seeking the best person for the job. Of course, there are a lot of factors that play into this. Does the person fit into the company culture? What kind of education does the person have? What kind of personality does the person have? Experience? etc.
We have a tendency to want the best of the best. So, if you're comparing two resumes, one with a gap in employment and the other with a steady work history, I think most people would lean towards the latter. I think this is a result of human nature. If we have the choice between two options, one being marginally better than the other, we'll likely have a bias towards the marginally better option.
Consider the case of filing your taxes. Do you want an accountant that has 1-2 years of experience doing them, or would you give preference to an accountant with 15-20 years of experience doing them? Now consider that you have the option of paying them the same amount for this service? Who do you choose? I do realize this can come back to bite you in the butt, too, especially since your preference is probably the preference shared by the majority of folks. In these cases, it can be good to give the new blood an opportunity to prove his/her worth.
I can empathize with your view. As compassionate humans, we naturally want to see people do well. Yet, some folks, if not most, aren't willing to make that possible if it's at the expense of their reputation.
The Georgia Speaker of the House is introducing a bill that will give tax credits to companies who hire the unemployed. I sincerely hope this passes. Similar legislation was proposed last year but was vetoed. I don't remember the details regarding the veto.
I think this was true before the recession because jobs were more plentiful and an employed candidate had an edge. I don't think the same is true anymore. I think employers have lots to choose from, so they are looking for the best fit/best candidate. Also, the unemployed candidate in this case has the edge because they can usually start right away.
I recently went on a job interview (I'm employed) and they selected the unemployed candidate. I was actually relieved because the job wasn't the best fit for me and I would have liked to have seen it go to someone who needed the job. I would have turned it down had they offered, but I didn't want to have to do that.
I'd call them both in and hire the best person for the job. Although they might look the same on paper, during the interview process it will become apparant that one is a better fit either as far as technical qualifications or a better fir with the corporate culture as far as their personality.
Their current employment status wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't hire someone simply because they were unemployed, nor would I not hire them for the same reason.
Does not matter, interview both, picked the best persopn for the job. If the employed person is best, they get hired. If the unemplyed person is the best, they get hired. You are forgetting or overlooking that when you hire the employed person, you single handedly created a new job opening at the other company for that unemployed person.
I'd call them both in and hire the best person for the job. Although they might look the same on paper, during the interview process it will become apparant that one is a better fit either as far as technical qualifications or a better fir with the corporate culture as far as their personality.
Their current employment status wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't hire someone simply because they were unemployed, nor would I not hire them for the same reason.
Several of the posts above fall out of the assumptions made by the original poster. The candidates are exactly the same - exactly - except for employment status. The original post is hypothetical. The assumption is no differences become apparent during an interview, etc. Otherwise, if we allow the candidates to be differentiated in other ways, the thread can be closed by simply stating "The best person for the job."
With that, the employer would have more leverage hiring the unemployed person at negotiation time.
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.
, true!
