Unemployed Job Candidates don't show they are being productive while jobless! (hire, training)
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.
After being "separated" from a job I held for twenty years after college I decided to take the summer off, when interviewing for a job the VP of the company asked what I had been doing for the eight months I was off, I told him I was doing stuff around the house(repairs and stuff)I didn't have time for while working(not really a lie, but ...), the interview took a tangent toward home repairs(completely unrelated to the job) ... I got the job.
After being "separated" from a job I held for twenty years after college I decided to take the summer off, when interviewing for a job the VP of the company asked what I had been doing for the eight months I was off, I told him I was doing stuff around the house(repairs and stuff)I didn't have time for while working(not really a lie, but ...), the interview took a tangent toward home repairs(completely unrelated to the job) ... I got the job.
Oh my goodness...you mean you answered a perfectly reasonable question during an interview and got the job? Amazing. And so simple. (I don't need a sarcasm emoticon for this one, I need a whole font)
Oh my goodness...you mean you answered a perfectly reasonable question during an interview and got the job? Amazing. And so simple. (I don't need a sarcasm emoticon for this one, I need a whole font)
But wait! You and your associate, annerk, spent much of the time on this thread lambasting all the prospective employees for doing just this. In sum, anybody who was not building up their skill set for the particular field they were applying for while unemployed were ultimately deemed worthless by you two. And now that TapperCheck has provided proof that a job can be had if you didn't spend countless hours updating and honing your skills, you're sarcastically agreeing as if this has been your point all along.
The inconsistency of your statements astound me. I suggest you go back and review the posts where both you and annerk were knocking anybody that would answer an interview question in the way that TapperCheck just described above.
That's why people have so much trouble finding work. We have sociopaths in these positions that are preventing people from getting ahead. They are more then just incompetent. We have an entire industry called HR who's only purpose is to keep people down. Like one of the supermarkets I've applied to in my area. One of the managers has no education whatsoever. Not even a ged. But me, with a ged, I'm somehow not good enough. It is sociopathic behavior.
Can't find a job? Blame EMPLOYERS. NOT the government. EMPLOYERS are the problem.
That's why people have so much trouble finding work. We have sociopaths in these positions that are preventing people from getting ahead. They are more then just incompetent. We have an entire industry called HR who's only purpose is to keep people down. Like one of the supermarkets I've applied to in my area. One of the managers has no education whatsoever. Not even a ged. But me, with a ged, I'm somehow not good enough. It is sociopathic behavior.
Can't find a job? Blame EMPLOYERS. NOT the government. EMPLOYERS are the problem.
My slogan!
People go into HR because they aren't smart enough to get a real job at the corporation they work for.
But wait! You and your associate, annerk, spent much of the time on this thread lambasting all the prospective employees for doing just this. In sum, anybody who was not building up their skill set for the particular field they were applying for while unemployed were ultimately deemed worthless by you two. And now that TapperCheck has provided proof that a job can be had if you didn't spend countless hours updating and honing your skills, you're sarcastically agreeing as if this has been your point all along.
The inconsistency of your statements astound me. I suggest you go back and review the posts where both you and annerk were knocking anybody that would answer an interview question in the way that TapperCheck just described above.
I stand by both of my previous statements. And I still feel that the better prepared the employee, the better the chance for employment. This thread is full of people saying that they will not answer that question, that it is nosy and that the evil employer is only asking to find a way to disqualify. I post that, FINALLY, someone comes in and says that they answered the question, and also got the job. And now I am insane? Give me a break. Sounds to me like he was productive, and he did not sit around and watch Judge Judy. Did he increase his skill set doing home repair? Not sure...but what he did show was that he was able to tackle a task, learn about it, and follow through. All traits that are ALSO what we have been saying. And, I suggest you go and find ONE post in which I have said I took issue with a single answer that showed the person had been using his time productively. Or rather, save your time, you will not find one. But I do suggest you read what I have posted for the content rather than what you have decided I meant. You will find that never once did I say anything against someone who was actually DOING SOMETHING while unemployed.
HOwever, I will continue to interview both employed and unemployed for my positions and hire the one who is the best asset for the company. If the employed person brings current skills and the unemployed person does not, I will hire the one with the current skills.
People go into HR because they aren't smart enough to get a real job at the corporation they work for.
LOL...next time the President of the company I work for asks me to look into the legality of something for him, or to handle a government form, or to look over something else the company is doing, or write the policy on something, I willl be certain to mention to him that I am an idiot with no skills. I doubt he will believe me as then he would have to stop relying on me...
That's why people have so much trouble finding work. We have sociopaths in these positions that are preventing people from getting ahead. They are more then just incompetent. We have an entire industry called HR who's only purpose is to keep people down. Like one of the supermarkets I've applied to in my area. One of the managers has no education whatsoever. Not even a ged. But me, with a ged, I'm somehow not good enough. It is sociopathic behavior.
Can't find a job? Blame EMPLOYERS. NOT the government. EMPLOYERS are the problem.
My slogan!
Sociopath. That word does not mean what you think it means. GUessing they hired the guy for the position who used the correct words in the correct context.
But, please keep the slogan. Believe it. The HR people who interview you and your attitude will be able to see this attitude and continuing successfully making sure the attitude displayed does not infect the rest of their workforce by accidentally hiring you. Well done, HR. And yet another example of a person unwilling to see that they are the problem. Always so much easier to blame others.
I agree HR people are hacks and their theories about selection are a serious problem. They bring stereotyping, generalizations, BS psychological testing and profiling because they have managed to convince employers that they can reduce the chances of a bad hire and employers, like people suffering chronic illness, are vulnerable to such quackery.
Frankly I like my current job and the only part I don't like involves dealing with the crap the HR throws at me (they have this stupid on-line goal and assessment system). It seems the only reason those bimbos exist are to reduce the chances of a good hire and reduce the productivity of other. I hold them in more disgust than lawyers.
People go into HR because they aren't smart enough to get a real job at the corporation they work for.
I tend to agree with this point. It's a field that tends to attract mostly women with an overload of soft skills and not many hard, technical skills (your communications/art history/English lit/etc. majors with no real world experience). At least, that describes the HR department for my current employer and most of my former employers (that even had HR departments). I was pretty close with the CFO at one of my first jobs at a small services company and he told me, "Whatever you do, don't go into HR. It's the first department to get cut." It just goes to show you the actual value they offer to the company. They are primarily a cost center that produces little to no monetary value.
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.
