http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11049/1126251-407.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opini ... .html?_r=1
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ess17.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/caree ... /19848038/
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-16-11.cfm

Where does it end?

simply means they do not have a real job for applicants..

this is not serious.

falsely diagnosed and life altered is serious...
or integrity too deep to mention publicly.

and that 9% unemployed number.. I thunk its backwards. it is 9% employed, 91% hanging on for dear life.

Yea Ive been unemployed since I made the mistake of reporting another manager for stealing, so they decided to fire me instead of her? I graduated with a bachelors degree in management with many awards and honors and I can not find a job to save my life. I have years of experience in management, a glowing resume, and proven talent in the field of management with still no job in sight. I'm seriously ready to move to another country at this point, America is going down hill fast.

Perhaps it's time to stop depending on the system, since it's broken beyond repair. Start to grow some food, get together with other people with the same mindset and get to know a dentist. We live in interesting times.

That's funny you're saying that, I was talking about this with friends not too long ago

Aristide, don't give up !! I'd been unemployed for almost a year and I just got a job a week ago. My resume is probably not as extensive as yours is (only 5 years experience) but I was starting to get quite desperate : only one serious contact every other month, going to interviews and never hearing from the employer again (no matter how many phone calls and emails I sent)...
And then over the course of 2 weeks, I had 2 phone interviews, and a on site interview. A week after that, they made me an offer.
Good luck !!

[EDIT : as for topic discussed here, an unemployed person will just be extra motivated on a new job. As for skills being lost (IT is mentionned in those articles), I think it's mostly bullshit (unless you haven't worked for more than 5 years). IMO, any HR person who thinks that doesn't know what they're talking about. IT skills, even if a little outdated can be made up really fast by the right person with the right general IT skills. A programming language doesn't change that fast, programming techniques barely change, enterprise grade hardware doesn't change that fast either (it's more like companies don't usually upgrade their hardware infrastucture that often, allowing you to catch up on technology), project management techniques barely change... I know it's hard to stay on top of things when not working, but public libraries have a lot of (free) resources to help you stay in the game : professional IT magazines and publications, programming guides, certification study guides... And that's something I would mention during interviews.]

I just found this, and thought that it was interesting.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a ... country:GB

Useful tool it seems, as countries can be compared, and in the USA, different States can be compared.

Although, back on topic specifically, I find it utterly disgusting that some companies are refusing to take on unemployed people, that is discrimination to the extreme. Those companies should be boycotted, see how those arseholes like losing work because they dont want to dish it out in a fair manner.

I know there are a lot of differences in the labour market between the USA and various other countries including the UK. I would suggest that people take on whatever job they can, even if it is mowing lawns, or other mundane manual labour jobs paid in cash. Money is money, get it however you can if you need it, I would (although, as I have a job I am not the best person top listen to as the last time I was unemployed was 10-years ago and my life was very different then).

Good luck finding a job everyone.


Andy

I explained to aristide1 quite awhile ago (in another thread) how to get around this problem.

Wow, that is quite f*cked up.

I mean, they're looking for "Help". Can they really be expecting already employed people to drop their jobs for a "Help" position? If they can, that's even more f*cked up.

But they surely must realize that with their mindset, becoming unemployed is essentially a death sentence?

The "want ad" posted above is not real, it is just a dramatization of the fact that when one submits a resume, that many employers will count it against you if you are currently unemployed. Part of this has to do with the large number of applicants for each job opening, and hiring managers are not able interview everyone who applies, and they look for reasons why to reject someone.

I would expect this to be the case, but its not a "reason" its an "excuse", and it is as retarded as throwing out CV's because of someone's age, ethicity or sex, which are of course in any sensible place is illegal. They would be just as wise to throw out anyone's CV where their home address door number is an "even" number if they want to simply and arbitrarily half the number of CV's in their pile, or perhaps ignore anyone whose name has the letter "S" in it, there are any number of totally moronic ways of ignoring possible candidates for a job.

There are really easy ways to isolate a few people who you want to interview from a huge pile, all you need to do is keep on adding requirements, or at least things that you would prefer the applicant to be capable of doing until you are around the point where there are a sensible number of people to interview, it does not take long to do at all, and it is a far fairer way of doing it than saying that anyone who has been unemployed for xxx amount of time is now "not employable", becase of course that would rule out anyone who has just left University (College in the USA) as they were not employed.


Andy

i always split the pile into 3 and throw away one of the piles. In this way I avoid employing unlucky people

Hilarious........


Andy

Nothing surprises me anymore. I'm studying for A+ certification, already have network+, then security+, after that it depends on how hard it is to obtain it. I send some resumes pretty much the way Earl on "My name is Earl" does things, just so I can check off the box on the to do list.

Today I got an email about a job in my field, which I'm qualified for. Yeah, umm, I applied for that job and was interviewed FOUR MONTHS ago, and while I have been disqualified I haven't been chosen either. What I realized in the interview was frankly I'm overqualified for what they want, so what exactly are the measuring requirements? Perhaps just enough knowledge to do the job and zero else? Not one to work their way up, or perhaps get experience and leave for something better? Who knows? I've written this job off as of today. Leaving me hanging for 4 months is not readily excusable. I could be a wise-ass and reapply, but no.
UPDATED: Same position in the next town over. Worth reapplying? Yes.

My biggest issue here is that there's no published list of what companies are doing the "unemployed need not apply" stuff. They should feel the repercussions of their decisions. I sure as hell feel it.

I don't think that many companies have that as a corporate policy, just individual hiring managers. In fact, I suspect that it is the outside recruiters more than the companies or hiring managers that refuse to even consider the unemployed in today's tight job market.

Oh, I see.

---
I hate the whole job application process. One reason I became self-employed.

In the end, you're depending on luck more than anything else. There will most always be competing applicants and few of us are "special" enough that our resume will not be (out-)matched by somebody else.

I also hate the resume-fluffers, who've had two dozen internships when they're 23 and who always casually mention how they've spend six months in Australia or Hongkong or whereever. As if that is really an accomplishment in today's globalized world. You're not Marco Frickin' Polo!

No, I've decided that I will try everything in my power not to make myself dependant on luck or the momentary mood of a hiring manager again.

Well I'm still applying for internships. Entry level jobs in my new profession are being filled by experienced people. I'd be quite happy with a 6 month internship, even at no pay. The federal ones I can't apply anymore. You need to still be in school, once you graduate you're now dog meat. No matter, they are all few and far between.

I'm going to reapply to the same ones I applied for last summer. Better odds than the lottery, though not by all that much.

Anybody have good examples of cover letters. I can't seem to get a firm grasp on the idea.

Whoa - My job hunting expenditures exceeded $1000 last year, according to those hiring in the article I'm a loser big time.

I'm rather PO'd - This is a perfect time to lift weight,take my aggrevation out on them.

I don't know how they phrase it where you are, but here I'd ask what difference any of that makes to the person who's holding the shit end of the stick?

Doesn't make any difference, except it is harder to hold the company responsible for the actions of individual managers or outside recruiting firms (which is probably worse than if it were a company policy).

I wouldn't expect any company to legitimately get away with not allowing unemployed applicants to apply to their vacancies. I certainly wouldn't have thought that would be legal or possible here in the UK anyway, whether the US would be different... ?

The US is fast becoming a corporatocracy, a plutarchy. And many are cheering.



Benito Mussolini

It is not clear whether it is actually illegal in the US to not hire the unemployed because they are not a "protected class" under US law (which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin, religion, age, and a few other categories). However, the number of companies who actually have policies that don't allow unemployed to apply is probably very small, and it is usually independent head-hunters who blatantly advertise to not bother to apply if you are unemployed. But even if an unemployed person is allowed to apply, actually being seriously considered is something different, and hard to prove when discrimination occurs in those cases.

Not quite true - the US has been both of these things for many years.

Yeah well good luck getting M0002a to understand what things are like in the US.

I'm pretty sure he/she understands and is probably one of those doing the cheering.

What I dislike is the globalisation that goes hand in hand with the corporatocracy. The rest of the world is becoming Americanised. Wherever you go you find the same shops and products. Countries are slowly losing their uniqueness and much of the world has become a part of the American cultural and economic empire. It's an inevitable result of capitalism and an overcrowded world where people want more stuff more cheaply. However, empires come and go... the question is, will America try to hang on to her empire by military means now that their economic might is waning and the "Barbarians" are at the gates.
(Sorry for the cliche, but I find comparisons of America and Ancient Rome irresistable!)

Having said all that, I have to admit that I'm using the system to my own ends - in a few days I'm off to the US for a few weeks to do a job. American dollars will feed my family for a while. I'll probably take the opportunity to buy more cheap Carhartt workwear and an Intel SSD when I'm there as well, although the exchange rate is not as favourable to us "ripped off" Brits as it was a few years ago.

This is not exactly correct. The world is becoming Americanized. When will you people learn to spell correctely?


You are correct that the USA will invade and occupy any country that tries to remove (or deny creation of) McDonald's restaurants in their country. This is a basic principle of American Foreign Policy.

In America, we keep hearing about how great the medical benefits in European countries is; however, it seems to me that their mental health benefits are probably lagging behind.

Not biting at that one.
Anyway, English and American are two different languages now - use a z instead of an s by all means but in English it's correct to use an S





There is nothing wrong with our mental health here in England - it's only the cows that are mad.

In his country that is correct spelling.

Same old US arrogance.

Lighten up, even judge56988 knew that was a joke.

Seriously- a corporatocracy?

The current administation seems fine penalizing and fining and taxing and regulating our "free markets" to their own whims. Heck, "Obamacare" was judged to be unconstitutional and they are currently ignoring that. They are chosing to "stop defending" the defense of marriage act, thus deciding which laws they think they should enforce. If anyone is overextending their power, it's the executive branch of the government.

Yes, corporations are evil- except they pay lots of taxes to the government which fund all sorts of projects and programs. They also employ millions of people and actually create wealth.

As far as somewhat from England being gleeful about the American "empire" declining, might I point out the Brittish empire- which was a real empire and not a supposed one. I find this ironic.

Well, three other federal judges have deemed it consitutional, so why shouldn't they?



They are still enforcing DOMA until it is either repealed by Congress or there are some definitive court ruling as to the consitutionality of the disputed Section 3. See here.

You really should get your information from someone besides Fox News.