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.
I agree. But I also have noticed if the person addresses it upfront, by saying something like "I am being picky and looking for a long term career so it needs to be right" the person doing the interview, etc seems to drop it. Guessing that wouldn't work if the ad says you need to be employed, but honestly, those that say it in writing don't seem all THAT common.
With due respect, in this environment, in many areas of the country, the unemployed person will not GET to the point of an interview.
Unless he/she lies on his/her resume, of course.
"Not eligible if unemployed" means that the most recent job on your resume has a "TILL PRESENT" tag on the dates line. If you WERE employed up until - let's say - "03/12", that means you are NOT currently employed, and if there is no more recent entry saying "03/12 - present", that seals the verdict, and your candidacy will to into the circular file.
Got it? You won't get an interview. It stinks. Personally, I'd consider making up a company and calling yourself "Distribution Director" or some such, and pay some sales guy to answer reference phone calls as the "Chief Operating Officer" of said company. Now THERE's an idea for an at-home business! References-4-U, lol!
Of COURSE I'd never do anything dishonest, personally. I vow to meet or exceed the highest standards, as demonstrated by our top tier Corporate Role Models and esteemed Corporate Citizens.
With due respect, in this environment, in many areas of the country, the unemployed person will not GET to the point of an interview.
Unless he/she lies on his/her resume, of course.
"Not eligible if unemployed" means that the most recent job on your resume has a "TILL PRESENT" tag on the dates line. If you WERE employed up until - let's say - "03/12", that means you are NOT currently employed, and if there is no more recent entry saying "03/12 - present", that seals the verdict, and your candidacy will to into the circular file.
Got it? You won't get an interview. It stinks. Personally, I'd consider making up a company and calling yourself "Distribution Director" or some such, and pay some sales guy to answer reference phone calls as the "Chief Operating Officer" of said company. Now THERE's an idea for an at-home business! References-4-U, lol!
Of COURSE I'd never do anything dishonest, personally. I vow to meet or exceed the highest standards, as demonstrated by our top tier Corporate Role Models and esteemed Corporate Citizens.
See how truthiness works?
I love the line about meeting or exceeding the standards demonstrated by the crooks at the top - I mean "job creators!"
Funny how they won't even consider the unemployed for jobs, but that standard doesn't apply to the big-wigs at the top. Gee, I wonder why...
With due respect, in this environment, in many areas of the country, the unemployed person will not GET to the point of an interview.
Unless he/she lies on his/her resume, of course.
"Not eligible if unemployed" means that the most recent job on your resume has a "TILL PRESENT" tag on the dates line. If you WERE employed up until - let's say - "03/12", that means you are NOT currently employed, and if there is no more recent entry saying "03/12 - present", that seals the verdict, and your candidacy will to into the circular file.
Got it? You won't get an interview. It stinks. Personally, I'd consider making up a company and calling yourself "Distribution Director" or some such, and pay some sales guy to answer reference phone calls as the "Chief Operating Officer" of said company. Now THERE's an idea for an at-home business! References-4-U, lol!
Of COURSE I'd never do anything dishonest, personally. I vow to meet or exceed the highest standards, as demonstrated by our top tier Corporate Role Models and esteemed Corporate Citizens.
See how truthiness works?
I got a call for a interview on Friday and my resume shows my last job was in December of 2011.
Thanks for the information. This is horrible discrimination and all I can ask myself is what hope do we the unemployed have?
It's hard, no doubt. That is why you should avoid unemployment. I've seen some unemployed people attend seminars or networking events. They go simply to meet people and hope they can get an introduction to someone hiring for a position they fit into. It's not a bad strategy at all. It bypasses the application and interview process almost completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebunny
I agree. But I also have noticed if the person addresses it upfront, by saying something like "I am being picky and looking for a long term career so it needs to be right" the person doing the interview, etc seems to drop it. Guessing that wouldn't work if the ad says you need to be employed, but honestly, those that say it in writing don't seem all THAT common.
I did this during my 6 months of unemployment and it didn't seem to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73
With due respect, in this environment, in many areas of the country, the unemployed person will not GET to the point of an interview.
Unless he/she lies on his/her resume, of course.
"Not eligible if unemployed" means that the most recent job on your resume has a "TILL PRESENT" tag on the dates line. If you WERE employed up until - let's say - "03/12", that means you are NOT currently employed, and if there is no more recent entry saying "03/12 - present", that seals the verdict, and your candidacy will to into the circular file.
Got it? You won't get an interview. It stinks. Personally, I'd consider making up a company and calling yourself "Distribution Director" or some such, and pay some sales guy to answer reference phone calls as the "Chief Operating Officer" of said company. Now THERE's an idea for an at-home business! References-4-U, lol!
Of COURSE I'd never do anything dishonest, personally. I vow to meet or exceed the highest standards, as demonstrated by our top tier Corporate Role Models and esteemed Corporate Citizens.
See how truthiness works?
As someone who sells background screening services for a living: lying about anything on your resume is a horrible idea. People check your listed companies to see if they're legally registered with the state secretary's office beforehand. Also, they won't ever call your listed professional reference to verify employment, they'll call the main business phone line and ask for HR to verify. They do this for that very reason. So people can't just make up companies or have their buddy pretend to be their supervisor and say "Bob? Yeah, he worked here, yup".
It applies in many realms, how many brand NEW MLB managers do you see? Few. Most hires are those recently fired elsewhere.
When a worker loses his job these days, regardless of the cause, he's considered "unemployable" by many.
When an executive loses his job, it is almost *always* because of his mistakes - companies don't lay off random executives just to cut costs, and yet they suffer in no way for their screw-ups.
So, what you're saying is that there is a higher demand for failed executives vs. decent unemployed people. Considering how stupid the work world can be, that may be true, but it might also be caused by how justice for the rich is vastly different than justice for the rest of us.
So, what you're saying is that there is a higher demand for failed executives vs. decent unemployed people. Considering how stupid the work world can be, that may be true, but it might also be caused by how justice for the rich is vastly different than justice for the rest of us.
Wrong. I'm saying for lower skill set jobs, the odds favor the employer. Millions have the applicable previously acquired skill sets. Not so at the executive level. Corps are not going to view anyone more than 1 tier below a CEO , for example, to become a CEO. That severely limits supply.
Wrong. I'm saying for lower skill set jobs, the odds favor the employer. Millions have the applicable previously acquired skill sets. Not so at the executive level. Corps are not going to view anyone more than 1 tier below a CEO , for example, to become a CEO. That severely limits supply.
There is not a such thing is applying for a CEO position so you are right it won't be a lot of applicants LOL
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.
