Skip to comments.There Really Is A Stigma Against The Long-Term Unemployed
Posted on 04/16/2013 7:05:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There's a real stigma associated with people who have been out of work for more than six months or those who are prone to job hopping.
To find out how hiring managers view these candidates, economist Rand Ghayad conducted an experiment where he sent out 4,800 fictitious résumés for 600 job openings.
Ghayad found that managers would rather hire people with no relevant job experience than someone who's been unemployed for a long time or has had several jobs in a short period of time.
The resumes sent out described candidates looking work for different reasons across several industries, but all were all male, had racially ambiguous names and similar education backgrounds.
Below is a chart from the paper illustrating how little it matters if you have experience in the industry you're applying for because "the first thing employers look at is how long you've been out of work, and that's the only thing they look at if it's been six months or longer," writes Matthew O'Brien at The Atlantic.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Like most “stigmas,” there’s a legit reason for it in general - while of course there are exceptions. I didn’t see the article mention anything about the culpability of the long term unemployed person in this whole equation.
they actually should be hired first
RE: I didnt see the article mention anything about the culpability of the long term unemployed person in this whole equation.
What does “culpability” mean?
The dirtbags are building their case to push for an expansion of H1B because it is cheaper. It’s the reason why most of these companies and their hiring managers are not very active in anything that will spur job creation. It’s in their best interest (not the country’s) to be able to say that they cannot find willing and qualified employees.
Fault, blame, responsibility - normally used in situations where all of these are shared.
Let me guess: you’ve never owned or run a business.
There must be a sense of urgency when you lose your job. Some people (I find this hard to believe) actually like being laid off and collecting unemployment benefits for awhile. Time off for good behavior seems to be their attitude. These are the ones who are losing out in this new evironment. I have held job since I was thirteen years old. I cannot fathom unemployment for any length of time at all. Yes I have a lost a few jobs along the way...but I had part time work...to help me get through until I found a full time job. When I was in between full time jobs, I had a HUGE sense of urgency....Getting up early every morning, putting on a suit and tie and pounding the pavement. Even if I had no interviews scheduled on a particular day, I pounded the pavement anyways....knocking on doors, filling out applications, walking into job placement agencies, I left no stone unturned. This must be the mindset for everyone who values work and having a job. A job is a precious commodity in this pathetic anti-business evironment of obamanation.
The only way to combat long term unemployment is to at least work on some sort of degree. That is at least an excuse to use when asked why you haven’t worked. Of course it will cost money to go to school, but it might be worthwhile in getting a job and you can stop going to school once you are hired.
That’s exactly the truth - businesses have no agenda but to hire the best person for the job in most cases - simply because survival is too difficult to factor in any other issue. While there are exceptions to every rule, in general, someone who was willing to do some kind of stinky part time work is a much better candidate for a good job than someone who laid out for six months. That’s just common sense and human nature.
Anyone who will be honest with themselves will acknowledge this. Hiring managers and business owners already have.
That is a very good question. The assumption seems to be that the long term unemployed are all lazy and don’t really want or feel that they need a job. I’ve known a lot of people who are in that category and they will take any job including some who haul garbage, work day labor, sling french fries and try their best to land even an entry level job. Not hiring qualified unemployed only plays in the our socialist dictator’s plans to force as many as possible onto the welfare rolls. Where else will they go? Are they going to starve and let their families starve? Too many on these forums will say that the unemployed today are too lazy to go out and find a job when the truth is there are many less jobs today than six years ago and hiring managers generally won’t hire or consider even qualified applicants because they are long term unemployed. When we reach a certain level of unemployment then there won’t be enough consumers who can afford to pay for the goods and services that these companies and their hiring managers provide which puts many of them out of employment.
Taking a part time job or attempting to start your own business would be better, but going back to school would also reflect much better than laying out for sure.
I agree with the part-time job and starting a business too. I think anything that looks like you are doing something helps!
No, that is NOT the assumption. In fact, there is no assumption per se, but simply the REALIZATION that MOST (not all) people who lay out chronically are lazier than those who found something to do, regardless of how undesirable. There is also the realization that six months to a year off - even for good people - damages their ability to kick it back into gear. Yes, there are exceptions, but this is a "law of large numbers" universe and anecdotal evidence is irrelevant - interesting perhaps, but not significant.
Being in the software industry working in NYC (but not anymore), I can tell you that there are many COMPETENT people who have been laid off because of many other reasons between late 2007 and 2009.
Some of them:
1) Financial firms want to move data centers to less expensive states and tell employees that they need to be prepared to move or else... ( and many don’t want to uproot themselves, so they take a package instead ). Nothing to do with their performance.
2) Financial firms embarked on an ill-advised project and find out that the market and general economic conditions have changed and there is no need for the project any longer. Continuing will only cause more money to be poured down the drain . result : Mass layoffs ( the good get thrown out with the bad and the ugly ).
Just two I have observed off the top of my head. Age discrimination is also rampant but I’d rather not get into it because the counter-argument would be -— you could be the victim of the Peter Principle.
And yes, there is also the separating of the wheat and the chaff, but we can’t ignore all the above that I mentioned.
No doubt. There is a strange inertia dynamic in human beings, and six months off or longer seems to just ruin it. Anything is better than nothing....
The article points out no statistical difference has been found in performance or longevity in the job once hired.
The economy of the last few years has put a lot of very qualified people out of full time jobs with companies. Unfortunately the HR departments exercising such bias has exacerbated the problem. Add to this the unfortunate situation of being a white male over 50 and your doomed - so just have to find a way to be self employed. And that is not an easy proposition.
I hear it all the time in my line of work, “Yep I got laid off in 2011 and wanted to take some time off before I looked for another job.” Or the more honest that tell me, “I didn’t start looking for work until my unemployment ran out.”
The lazy know how to game the system. They do the bare ‘job search minimum’ so they can keep the bennies rolling in. Or they’ll work for 10 weeks to become eligible for UI, then quit and head right to the OET to fill out a claim.
If ive seen it once ive seen it a hundred times.
All of what you say is true, but it’s anecdotal, and you are simply not going to understand the law of large numbers if you stay buried in anecdotal evidence. There are also different dynamics for different industries, and perhaps in the software industry, one where working in mom’s basement might lead to billionaire status, the “rule of thumb” is not quite as pure as it is in most other industries.
The fact remains, this survey is totally in sync with what we all know about human nature, and to try and believe otherwise because we are, or are related to, or know, some of the exceptions is simply a dead end realm.
And I’m calling BS on that stat, and pointing out that the article was written with an obvious agenda. I challenge you to find a single biz owner or manager (tiny companies notwithstanding) who will agree with those findings.
And Joe Biden’s cousin just got offered a job, proving the recession is over......./s
Why should that make a difference when I am hiring. Most business are not charities.
But most of the time, they come late, leave early and are the first to tattle to your boss if you come late (even if you are also leaving late that day) or leave early (even if you also came in early) that day.
They have the luxury of simply trash canning resumes which came in without meeting certain superficial criteria such as the right buzz-words for getting past software screening, too much or even too little job changing. Then there is the assumption that all of the long term unemployed are simply unemployable, just because many of them are. They've taken unemployment as long as they possibly can simply because Obongo's minions have made it an attractive alternative and their skill set has gone rusty. But in the same subset are highly motivated and skilled older workers who simply get passed over because of age, though excuses like "overqualified" do more to protect them from possible age discrimination actions than stating the real reason.
HR people are no longer skilled at locating these diamonds because their entire focus is now in following procedures, being politically correct and avoiding lawsuits.
I retired from the military after 25 years. After a few years of being retired, I want to work again. I’ve gone back to school because my military experience wasn’t relevant to most businesses.
I’ll be curious to see if employers refuse to hire me, either because I’ve been “unemployed” for a few years, or because I have retirement pay coming in and thus might not be as “hungry” as some.
The reality is I’d be a damn good worker. Four years of retirement has made me ready to go back and work for 10-15 years...but will anyone even look at me?
You don’t have to have owned a business to understand the economics and the problems the government puts on them. You also don’t know what I’ve done throughout my life so don’t make assumptions. Do you think that employees today don’t understand those problems? Most work very hard to make sure that their employers are successful and are willing to make sacrifices to keep everything running and to stay employed. Too many employers I’ve seen these days take advantage of their employees and treat them like slaves because they know the employees don’t have much choice. We’re not talking about a situation of not being able to afford to hire or expand; those employers aren’t advertising for employees. We’re talking about employers who will not hire qualified long term unemployed but will hire someone less qualified who is already employed somewhere else. It’s those who are hiring, just not hiring qualified people who have spent a long time working part time and/or looking for ANY job to stay afloat.
RE: All of what you say is true, but its anecdotal, and you are simply not going to understand the law of large numbers if you stay buried in anecdotal evidence.
OK, what does the law of large numbers tell us? Can you show me such studies using large numbers?
After an entire working career with never an interruption in jobs/job offers the entire job environment was completely changed thanks in part to GWB and to a much greater extent by this genetically inferior sub-human in the White Hut.
Yes, it may be blowing my own horn, but I was almost able to throw out my resume on the floor and there would be multiple jobs offer the same day until the central planners gained control.
After the last company went into bankruptcy, there was 3 months of job searches without a single reply to my resume. That had NEVER happened in the past.
It became obvious that a skilled employee, with executive experience, was not needed in a central planner’s world and the job market dried up for my type of work ethic, experience and achievement.
Fortunately, I planned for a good retirement and took it.
Now, however, my own government spends its every waking moment developing plans to extract every penny saved for retirement via taxes, regulations, and the biggest money grab of all, CommieCare.
Not only are they actively working to redistribute my life long earnings to their types, but simultaneously they are cutting off as many of my Constitutional rights to limit my ability to fight them.
It is no coincidence that all these changes are taking place at the same time. Fedzilla must eliminate constitutional protections in order to gain full control.
We are witnessing the end of this country as we know it.
Actually, you do. Now I'm sure that a lot of folks who never have run or owned one would agree with you, but I'm also quite sure that 100% of those who HAVE run or owned a business...would totally disagree with you. (in context, a business large enough to have hired and fired employees over a period of time).
THINK ABOUT THIS: those of us who HAVE run or owned a biz - one lived in the ignorance of not having done it - and we ALL know that there is absolutely no way to understand this til you've done it. Until you have run one, you cannot possibly compare the understanding of owning one versus the ignorance of not owning one. Logic. By definition, intrinsically and inherently so.
Tis obvious we need a law bacon it agin the law to hearer anyone that dasn’t been outta der job for at least six months.... ;-)
You are also making the assumption that most of these people take a “vacation” on unemployment and then are not too keen on really trying to find work. The layabouts ARE the exception but hiring policies like those discussed here are going to create an air of despair that will move long term unemployed to give up. I don’t know anyone who has taken months, years or even days to “gear up”. Everyone I’ve come in contact with are out there every day looking and applying. They take whatever part time jobs they can find and work hard to stay up to date in their fields. According to the article, these efforts don’t make any difference to most hiring managers so why should they bother further.
The burden of proof is on you here actually - because the first law of large numbers shown was that hiring managers apparently believe this. The second thing you ignore is an honest assessment of human nature. The third thing you do is assign a cockamamie motive for these folks hiring who they hire, somehow thinking that business is so easy these days that some kind of perverted agenda can be adhered to in hiring policy.
There are folks in this thread who insist that you are laid off BECAUSE you DESERVE to be and that accounts for MOST OF THE REASONS.
Just read some posts on this thread and you’ll understand what I mean.
I’m not making any assumptions - but again, you will never find someone who has had to hire, fire, lay off employees who will agree with you or disagree with me. Well all know what is generally true, and we all know there are exceptions. But exceptions prove the rule, because they stand out.
But proceed to indulge in your fantasies.
RE: The third thing you do is assign a cockamamie motive for these folks hiring who they hire, somehow thinking that business is so easy these days that some kind of perverted agenda can be adhered to in hiring policy.
OK, I agree with you — BUSINESS IS *NOT* EASY THESE DAYS. See Post #31 for instance.
My main question is the assumption that those who are laid off are MOSTLY because they are under-performing or incompetent.
I really need statistical proof of that. I don’t think the burden of proof is on my part.
No, that’s not true at all. There is a realization that when looking at a pool of applicants who all lost their original job say 12 months ago, that those who figured out how to do something in the interim are more likely to be productive workers than those who didn’t. No assumption. Nothing to do with the original lay off at all. Simply a human nature fact about how people handled the adversity of losing their job.
LET ME REPEAT SLOWLY. The assumption is NOT an assumption....it is a recognition of fact. Second, it has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, zip zero nada, nothing, nothing, to do with original lay off.
It is ALL, as in ALL, as in 100%, about how the person reacted to the adversity of losing that first job. Period. You are trying to assign personal and anecodatal evidences into an impersonal big picture.
My son came back from his second deployment in the Middle East and started looking for work. During the last year, all he has been able to find is being a security guard - and he’s limited to 30 hrs/week to prevent benefits from kicking in.
I’d argue most guys who have two combat tours have a reasonable work ethic. He has a wife and kid to take care of, so he’s motivated. But he’s still working part-time as a security guard because it is all he’s been able to find. And I suspect that the longer he goes like this, the harder it will be for him to find full time work.
I cannot say the same. I even did some of the same after a long overseas assignment with money in my pocket and a house project to work on.
In hindsight, I didn't realize how hard it would be to get another job that year. My planned 4 week vacation turned into 3 months. I was not on unemployment as I had finished a contract, not a layoff.
Well, once the economy heals at all - if it ever does - people with military back grounds will be quick hires. I would say, for purposes of this discussion, that returning from deployment in the Middle East and leaving the military will not be looked at in the context of “unemployed” at all. All your son needs is a little economic common sense - or perhaps a change to venue. I can’t imagine he would stay unemployed long in the Dakotas, or Texas, or anywhere the energy complex is producing a good jobs environment. Not saying he should move necessarily, just saying he will be considered a good hire.
Having been laid off before, I could not find work in my existing field, so I took two part-time jobs to tide me over.
When I finally was able to interview in my chosen field again, the HR manager told me that my willingness to work (even two part-time jobs) shows that I am a dedicated worker - that was one of the reasons she called me in (and I got the job).
TYPICALLY, someone not working for 6+ months is not willing to work or simply not really looking to work.
Of course, there are exceptions in every situation, but there is work out there; maybe not your IDEAL job opportunity, but there is WORK to be done.
Lastly, job hoppers are usually seeking the next pay-raise, not a career with a company. Given time, opportunity and effort, most people would get that next pay-raise in short-order. But, those who job-hop have a tendency to not want to wait until the opportunity comes along.
They will ditch a company to claim a quarter an hour pay-raise, ignoring the comfortable work atmosphere, ignoring the free-time allowed, ignoring the benefits (paid and unpaid), ignoring the COMPANY - as a whole. So, yes, companies are leery of those who job-hop.
Having worked in HR, I can tell you that both of these trends are well-founded.
What is this culpability you accuse me of?
Now look, this thread is no place for common sense, experience, and airing of what we ALL KNOW inside about human nature. This thread is a place for faux conservatives to find their inner Occupy Wall Street and blame big bad free enterprise. Take your logic and wisdom someplace else!!!!
Well, nothing. But I might start now with paranoia.....
By law H-1Bs are to be paid the same as Americans.
The last paying position I held was lost to THREE H-1Bs. as a money saving move.
Do the math.
It’s the same when trying to decide on buying a house, if everything looks good, but it’s been on the market for a long time, you will wonder why it hadn’t been sold yet, so you figure, “why take a chance?”