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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57789
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7
ive been turned away from positions after being contacted by a HM, they said they went with a local candidate, to me this just meant they were more inclined to hiring someone right away and/or they were really cheap and didnt want to pay for relocation costs.
An employer doesn't have to be "really cheap" to not want to pay for relocation costs, which are thousands of dollars. Why should they, if there are qualified local candidates? It makes no business sense.
An employer doesn't have to be "really cheap" to not want to pay for relocation costs, which are thousands of dollars. Why should they, if there are qualified local candidates? It makes no business sense.
most will give an allowance, and in the contract they will write in, if employee leaves in 12 or 24 months under their own doing they will need to repay relocate allowance. other than that there is no need to hire outsiders unless you are trying to build your companies experience. ive been hired at companies that are inbred and have no outsider knowledge mainly because they were to cheap to hire outside the area, ultimately it was their loss. its a similar reason you dont want to hire someone that has been stuck with the same experience (and company) for 20+ years. you want someone that has experience from multiple angles within a given profession.
If it is a low level job, and the pay is low, plus there is a large number of qualified applicants, no employer will want to interview the applicant. Too often if they give them a job, the first day of work comes along and they do not show up to work. They cannot afford to commute, do not want to move, or find another lower paid job that is closer. Employers are not gong to base their hiring on someone that is a distance away when there are more than enough qualified applicants living near the job.
On the other hand, if it is a well paid job with need for a highly qualified person, and qualified applicants are few and far between, then distance from the job means nothing, and the employer will pay travel costs and hotels, etc. for the intervidw, and will pay moving expenses to get the right person.
That's funny. On two separate occasions I've managed to land jobs long-distance, and these were for a bog-standard middle-income office support position in the first instance and a slightly more specialized but still middle-income niche position in the second (~$30 - $35k salary for each). In both cases I'd made it clear that I was looking for work in these cities because I desired to move there, and found hiring managers who were perfectly willing to hire me. My new managers simply set my start date far enough out to allow me a few weeks to handle my own relocation (which I paid for myself, and had fully expected to do so) and there I was, with no muss and no fuss.
I love it when people make sweeping generalizations that can be so easily demolished.
When the new year rolls around, I like many others will be actively looking for a new position. Like some, I'm also willing to drive a far distance for the right price. With that said, do you think hiring managers or HR look at an applicant’s address when determining who gets interviewed or not? If my skill set listed on my resume speaks and say I’m worthy of interviewing, is there a chance one might say “Ohh, he lives an hour from the office, let’s not interview him.â€
Depends.
In my line of work, one can easily work from home.
I do it routinely. Two days a week, I go into client offices, the remainder of the time, I work from my home office. I have no "office" office.
I live in PA, I could just as easily employ someone from California.
So it sorta depends on what kind of job you are looking for. Me, I would LIKE my employes (when and if I get them) to be within a two-three hour drive, so that if I needed to call them into the office far any reason, they could do it on the rare occasion I might need it.
It is my job to conduct an efficient and effective job search. There is a correlation between distance and pay, where people cannot sustain commuting on low levels of pay.
If a person wants to relocate to my area, it is their responsibility to let me know in the cover letter.
OK. So if the person who applies lives 4 hours away, its safe to assume they are relocating, but employers still don't want to look at them.
An employer doesn't have to be "really cheap" to not want to pay for relocation costs, which are thousands of dollars. Why should they, if there are qualified local candidates? It makes no business sense.
Here's a solution! Don't offer to pay for relocation costs and let the person who applied decided if it is worth it before they apply. There are no laws that require employers to pay for relocation costs. Are we really that dense that no one can figure that out?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57789
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7
most will give an allowance, and in the contract they will write in, if employee leaves in 12 or 24 months under their own doing they will need to repay relocate allowance. other than that there is no need to hire outsiders unless you are trying to build your companies experience. ive been hired at companies that are inbred and have no outsider knowledge mainly because they were to cheap to hire outside the area, ultimately it was their loss. its a similar reason you dont want to hire someone that has been stuck with the same experience (and company) for 20+ years. you want someone that has experience from multiple angles within a given profession.
That's true, but we already get plenty of "local" candidates flocking here and looking for work. My most recent hire moved here from another state just a month before I hired him. We can get that diversity of experience without relocating people, though it is done but only for upper management such as managing directors and CEO.
When the new year rolls around, I like many others will be actively looking for a new position. Like some, I'm also willing to drive a far distance for the right price. With that said, do you think hiring managers or HR look at an applicant’s address when determining who gets interviewed or not? If my skill set listed on my resume speaks and say I’m worthy of interviewing, is there a chance one might say “Ohh, he lives an hour from the office, let’s not interview him.”
Explain it in your cover letter. It depends on the position and the company.
Certain positions attract applicants from all over the country. It's OBVIOUS that the candidate is willing to relocate for the position. The details about who pays are generally left to the next step if it's not an exec job...and if the company is going to assume the candidate is going to make a relo package an issue they may just never bother to contact them. But if they are interested, they may make it clear they're not offering relo. OR it's up to the candidate to state they are willing to pass up relo and pay themselves.
Plenty of people want to move to another area anyway and relo isn't an issue all the time.
If the job is niche enough and you're a standout they won't care. If the job is relatively common with lots of applicants, then they will care.
I personally wouldn't hire anyone living an hour or 1.5 hrs away as the owner of my small business. (even though when I worked for a Fortune 500 company I commuted an hour away - but that is very common in that type of company - just not MY company.)
OK. So if the person who applies lives 4 hours away, its safe to assume they are relocating, but employers still don't want to look at them.
You keep missing the point. First, it's not obvious that somebody applying from 4 hours away is interested in relocating. The may be new to the state and not realize that I am 4 hours away. They may be careless, or have not done the math on relo costs.
Secondly, applicants have responsibilities too. One responsibility is to clearly communicate your experience, how you meet my job opening requirements, and address any potential issues such as distance.
You can choose to ignore these responsibilities in favor of simply sending in an application and then griping about your lack of response, but that is on you. If you want to increase your success rate, make my job as a HM easy. That means that you tell me that you are familiar with my area and/or the commute, that you intend on relocating and roughly when. Don't test my telepathic abilities, because they suck. If I read your mind incorrectly, I may not call you for an interview.
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.
