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.
This is not adequate. The suck it up routine is BS.
If a system is faulty and operates on a lottery principle (even for Vets????) It is unacceptable plain and simple. This is why the Federal Government is Geriatric in nature and moost of the young people got their appointments to positions either through State employment and networking or through being nominated or cherry picked for rubbing elbows (and other appendages) with the right individuals.
How many people do you really think get jobs from USAJobs each year compared to LinkedIn or Indeed?
I'm sure we are talking 1 in 250,000 vs. 1 in 50,000. Newsflash: The process is broken.
Great post. We are supposed to turn a blind eye to all problems, faults and sweep it under the rug. Sure.... We have seen what that has gotten us over the past years of turning a blind eye.
Most apologists last desperate attempt to those that are showing everyone how broken and screwed up the system or the amount of dysfunctional workplaces there today, is the "pull yourself up by the bootstrap suck it up routine". Are the problems ever fixed? Nope.(at least not until the company goes out of business or the country completely sinks into massive unemployment and recEssion) Do we progress? Nope..
Let's answer: "How many people get jobs from USAJobs each year?"
Answer: As many people as job openings that are filled.
You absolutely cannot get a job with any part of the federal gov't without there being a job opening, announcement, application. There is some internal hiring when one job is eliminated so they take the person in that position and fill a vacancy elsewhere. Also if you've been overseas for your allotted time (normally 3 years) you will be offered a position stateside without competition.
Anyone who is hired in the federal gov't, any position that is filled - that's how many people who get jobs from USAJobs each year. Believe me, those who need new employees lament about the long process, too. It does need tweaking but you have to understand the system and go with it.
How can I taylor a resume for each job when all my experience is the same? Sales support, order entry, customer service. That is the only jobs I can apply for. I can’t do admin and I can’t do any accounting. I’ve tried and I was not good at all.
Customizing your resume means emphasizing the portions of your job that are most applicable to the position you want.
As an example, many years ago, very early in my career, I was a buyer for a retail store. When I decided it was time to move onward and upward, I started applying for a variety of jobs. With some of them I emphasized my customer service experience. With others I emphasized the volume of merchandise and was responsible for. Others wanted managerial experience, so I emphasized my role as a team lead (very low level) over a couple of part-time employees. One job advertisement (yes, it was an advertisement in the classified section of the newspaper - I am old) said something about administering a contract. Because Purchase Orders are a type of contract, I dealt with sales terms all the time, and I had to adhere to a few other minor contracts as part of my job, I included that in my cover letter.
I landed the contract admin job. I learned a huge amount about contracts, but that job also expanded to include real managerial supervision and budgetary responsibility, a sales element, etc.
This is what people mean by customizing your resume to each job. It is also why I strongly advocate cover letters. Even if many people don't read cover letters, some do, and if you land one job as a result, the effort is worth it.
If a Vet is struggling to get hired by the Fed it absolutely is a lottery system outside of cronyism.
NO Vet should be unemployed. ZERO. I don't care if they aren't as profitable in the beginning. Since when did the Fed focus on profit and loss? (NEVER)
Vets should not even need to apply through the normal dysfunctional process. They should be catered to also through ramp up programs and apprenticeships.
Let's answer: "How many people get jobs from USAJobs each year?"
Answer: As many people as job openings that are filled.
You absolutely cannot get a job with any part of the federal gov't without there being a job opening, announcement, application. There is some internal hiring when one job is eliminated so they take the person in that position and fill a vacancy elsewhere. Also if you've been overseas for your allotted time (normally 3 years) you will be offered a position stateside without competition.
Anyone who is hired in the federal gov't, any position that is filled - that's how many people who get jobs from USAJobs each year. Believe me, those who need new employees lament about the long process, too. It does need tweaking but you have to understand the system and go with it.
(it's absolutely not a lottery process)
Half the jobs I applied for ended up just being cancelled. So theres that. And it is (Like every other facet of job hunting today) just a lottery process. All formalities and over the internet submissions and no way getting around the HR formality Resume filter BS and no way to find out who the hiring manager is so you can follow up over the phone (which would be a big help to show them that you are serious and proactive in your Job search). God forbid you do a phone follow up to resume submission and someone can hear your voice and see your desire. . No you're resume is just supposed to be sent to a BLACK HOLE of crap and no one has any idea who you are outside of a few sheets of paper
And lets not forget more people looking for work than there are jobs available. Its close enough to the lottery. Ive had all the necessary requirements for certain positions on USAjobs and then some, and a degree (Not even required), and a veteran and my resume just fell into a black hole there AND I live in a low socioeconomic region of the U.S where hardly anyone has a college degree so Im not competing with MIT/Harvard/Johns Hopkins grads. ROFLMAO. (Actually I say I was overqualified of the positions I applied for) . Even if you meet all the requirements and then some and have the supposed "Veteran edge" nothing comes of it
If a Vet is struggling to get hired by the Fed it absolutely is a lottery system outside of cronyism.
NO Vet should be unemployed. ZERO. I don't care if they aren't as profitable in the beginning. Since when did the Fed focus on profit and loss? (NEVER)
Vets should not even need to apply through the normal dysfunctional process. They should be catered to also through ramp up programs and apprenticeships.
Federal hiring is quite rigorous, and not even close to a lottery system. I don't know where you get this thought that vets should be guaranteed employment for life. That isn't the guarantee upon enlistment. Vets are catered to. They get GI Bill, and preferential hiring for many jobs.
What you are looking for is much closer to discrimination and entitlement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorianRo
Half the jobs I applied for ended up just being cancelled. So theres that. And it is (Like every other facet of job hunting today) just a lottery process. All formalities and over the internet submissions and no way getting around the HR formality Resume filter BS and no way to find out who the hiring manager is so you can follow up over the phone (which would be a big help to show them that you are serious and proactive in your Job search). God forbid you do a phone follow up to resume submission and someone can hear your voice and see your desire. . No you're resume is just supposed to be sent to a BLACK HOLE of crap and no one has any idea who you are outside of a few sheets of paper
And lets not forget more people looking for work than there are jobs available. Its close enough to the lottery. Ive had all the necessary requirements for certain positions on USAjobs and then some, and a degree (Not even required), and a veteran and my resume just fell into a black hole there AND I live in a low socioeconomic region of the U.S where hardly anyone has a college degree so Im not competing with MIT/Harvard/Johns Hopkins grads. ROFLMAO. (Actually I say I was overqualified of the positions I applied for) . Even if you meet all the requirements and then some and have the supposed "Veteran edge" nothing comes of it
So what if jobs get canceled? Have you looked at what is happening in the federal government right now? The Trump administration is wildly unpredictable and chopping budgets left and right, and refusing to appoint senior admins for many agencies. This is going to have a dramatic trickle down.
As for HR formality, that is a good thing. As a hiring manager (not fed, but state), if I didn't have HR to act as a filter, I wouldn't be able to get my job done. Random calls from every applicant asking me to disregard an established process based upon merit in favor of hiring them because they really want the job. That is no way to be fair, and it is not an effective method of getting the best employee for the job.
Federal hiring is quite rigorous, and not even close to a lottery system. I don't know where you get this thought that vets should be guaranteed employment for life. That isn't the guarantee upon enlistment. Vets are catered to. They get GI Bill, and preferential hiring for many jobs.
What you are looking for is much closer to discrimination and entitlement.
So what if jobs get canceled? Have you looked at what is happening in the federal government right now? The Trump administration is wildly unpredictable and chopping budgets left and right, and refusing to appoint senior admins for many agencies. This is going to have a dramatic trickle down.
As for HR formality, that is a good thing. As a hiring manager (not fed, but state), if I didn't have HR to act as a filter, I wouldn't be able to get my job done. Random calls from every applicant asking me to disregard an established process based upon merit in favor of hiring them because they really want the job. That is no way to be fair, and it is not an effective method of getting the best employee for the job.
If the HR formality process was based upon merit, experience, education, I think I would be able to get at least an INTERVIEW out of one of them at the very list when referred to a hiring manager because of veteran status, performance awards in the industry, education, a decade of experience in the exact responsibilities required so I don't know about the whole "merit" thing. Even if not a hire, AT LEAST an interview in one of the 40 positions I apply for.
How do we even know its based on merit anyways? How much meritocracy is there today? Some manager/otherwise big shot could have just expedited their candidate around all that nonsense. (Just like the do in the private sector today).. Ive seen it a million times for the past 10 years. Nothing "merit-based" about that. Thats just crooked cronyism and nepotism resulting in an uneven playing field.
Sure, if there were enough jobs to go around all well and good. There isn't though
If the HR formality process was based upon merit, experience, education, I think I would be able to get at least an INTERVIEW out of one of them at the very list when referred to a hiring manager because of veteran status, performance awards in the industry, education, a decade of experience in the exact responsibilities required so I don't know about the whole "merit" thing. Even if not a hire, AT LEAST an interview in one of the 40 positions I apply for.
I have explained this to you a dozen times already, and you simply refuse to understand. Sometimes I like to take on the lost causes though, so here I go again.
By all accounts, every federal job gets hundreds of applicants for each opening. Look at the thread by Hunterseat, who is already a fed and applying for essentially the same job she already holds. Even she cannot get an interview.
Now, as a hiring manager, I set minimum qualifications, which you apparently meet. So far, so good. That means that your resume gets forwarded to me, along with about 200 others. It is unrealistic for me to interview 200 applicants for one position. That is clearly a waste of time, and even you might agree on that.
How do I deal with this? I look at the 200 resumes fairly quickly, and I make a rough pile of the top 20 resumes. The result of this sorting process is that people who just meet the minimum qualifications are most likely among the 180 or so who will never hear from me. The top 20 get serious consideration, and of those I ask HR to do a phone screen for about 10. This usually drops the list of contenders down to about 5, and I interview those. From that list, I hire 1. That person is usually highly qualified, absolutely blowing away the minimum qualifications.
By those numbers, if you have applied for about 40 positions, and if you EXCEED the minimum qualifications, then you should qualify for an interview about once. Just once.
That isn't a lottery, where everything is up to chance. This is a meritocracy. It is also reality.
As an aside, this leads to the "purple squirrel" thing that people complain about so often. If you do receive hundreds of qualifying resumes for each position, one way to reduce that number is to increase the minimum qualifications. Require additional educations certifications, language proficiency, additional years of specific experience. You may not like it, and I don't really like it either, but it is a rational response to being overwhelmed by applicants.
If a Vet is struggling to get hired by the Fed it absolutely is a lottery system outside of cronyism.
NO Vet should be unemployed. ZERO. I don't care if they aren't as profitable in the beginning. Since when did the Fed focus on profit and loss? (NEVER)
Vets should not even need to apply through the normal dysfunctional process. They should be catered to also through ramp up programs and apprenticeships.
So you are saying some agency MUST hire a vet who has no education, skills, on the job experience, or even more than passing interest in a job posted? So the agency has to wait a year or so until said vet gets settled into the position, put productivity on hold, show any achievement, or decides they don't want to continue? How will the agency ever be able to demonstrate that it can achieve its mission? Believe it or not, agencies are held intensely accountable for their actions every single fiscal year, at least the ones I've worked for. If you don't use the funding given during one fiscal year you don't get it again. Not all agency work is a funded line item mandate. Being unable to accomplish the work proposed for the given time period is a sure fire way to end the program. Having inexperienced staff or staff who do not possess the expertise required during the time the program is funded is a sure fire way to leave the work undone.
Tell me....have YOU actually hired anyone off a USAJobs register? Vets show up at the top of the qualified applicant lists, period. Why shouldn't they compete with others who have also worked hard and given equal or more time to their professions? I have filled positions off registers with vets on them. There is no reason not to hire a veteran who has the skills to do my task. If they have some, or they can get up to speed with some onsite training, fantastic! Welcome! A couple of vets I've hired were eager, interested, motivated, and just great after some initial training. I'd hire them again in a second. I have also been pushed into hiring a couple of vets who didn't really have any interest in the work, ended up quitting or turning down the position after thinking it through for a couple of days, leaving me hanging with an incomplete program after a few months. These were individuals of course. It should have been embarrassing for these applicants to go through this. I do NOT see how a vet who served as a auto fleet mechanic should be able to simply step into a fishery biologist job that requires them to identify marine algae, plankton, fish larvae, analyze water contaminant loads for a research position that has a 1 year funding source. Now if I needed a fleet mechanic or a boat mechanic for this same project, by all means, the vet would be perfect for it. You do realize that USAJobs fills term and temporary jobs as well as permanent positions and that vets apply for both, right? You want government to be accountable and responsible? This ain't gonna do it.
Last edited by Parnassia; 03-03-2018 at 03:06 PM..
I have explained this to you a dozen times already, and you simply refuse to understand. Sometimes I like to take on the lost causes though, so here I go again.
By all accounts, every federal job gets hundreds of applicants for each opening. Look at the thread by Hunterseat, who is already a fed and applying for essentially the same job she already holds. Even she cannot get an interview.
Now, as a hiring manager, I set minimum qualifications, which you apparently meet. So far, so good. That means that your resume gets forwarded to me, along with about 200 others. It is unrealistic for me to interview 200 applicants for one position. That is clearly a waste of time, and even you might agree on that.
How do I deal with this? I look at the 200 resumes fairly quickly, and I make a rough pile of the top 20 resumes. The result of this sorting process is that people who just meet the minimum qualifications are most likely among the 180 or so who will never hear from me. The top 20 get serious consideration, and of those I ask HR to do a phone screen for about 10. This usually drops the list of contenders down to about 5, and I interview those. From that list, I hire 1. That person is usually highly qualified, absolutely blowing away the minimum qualifications.
By those numbers, if you have applied for about 40 positions, and if you EXCEED the minimum qualifications, then you should qualify for an interview about once. Just once.
That isn't a lottery, where everything is up to chance. This is a meritocracy. It is also reality.
As an aside, this leads to the "purple squirrel" thing that people complain about so often. If you do receive hundreds of qualifying resumes for each position, one way to reduce that number is to increase the minimum qualifications. Require additional educations certifications, language proficiency, additional years of specific experience. You may not like it, and I don't really like it either, but it is a rational response to being overwhelmed by applicants.
Couldn't have said it better. It really comes down to how well the vacancy and the required skills are presented. If they are vague and too broad, it leads to applicants that may not be well suited to the work. Hopefulls but hopeless. That isn't "fair" to any of the applicants IMHO. If they are specific they hone own the qualified applicant pool to those people best suited for the work. I don't want to waste the time and energy of any applicant (especially having been through years of rejections and near-misses myself to get where I am). I want to use the system to find the BEST person for the job, not waste taxpayer funding on misplaced "meritocracy". I am not in the business of insulting or misleading anyone.
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.
- I am old) said something about administering a contract. Because Purchase Orders are a type of contract, I dealt with sales terms all the time, and I had to adhere to a few other minor contracts as part of my job, I included that in my cover letter. 
