All,

After reading my own post, I think I can answer my own questions...

It's because of my own naivete.

Okay.  My therapy session is over.  I'm getting up from the couch and leaving now.

I thank everyone for their participation.  Any other questions or concerns will be addressed in my most thoughtful manner.

All of you have been very helpful and I thank all of you very very much.

Respectfully,

Tim B.

From: Tim Bogart <timbogart@yahoo.com>
To: Main PLUG discussion list <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 4:05:50 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application

That's how I see it, based on my experience, and my Jimmeny Cricket factor too.  Hence, my bewilderment as to why they would ask (what amounts in my mind to be just a really stupid question) "Why were you unemployed for 9 months?"  And why is "I don't know, I just couldn't get hired anywhere" such a bad response.  Why is the abject truth so bad?  It's a simple truth and for the average person, there's no shame in it.  It's certainly not an unemployed individual's fault if hiring managers don't find in his or her favor.  Well, maybe it is.  Maybe the person doesn't have the creds.  Maybe the person doesn't interview well.  There again, maybe the economy stinks.  Maybe it's NOT their fault directly.  Even if you ask why you didn't get hired into a position, normally the response you get is "We decided to pursue other candidates".  And you still don't know why you don't have a job.  I just find it to be a question, the asking of which there is little or nothing to gain.  I find it nothing but embarrassing to an applicant.  Sure, there is a reason.  But for every application submitted, for every resume submitted, there can be a thousand different reason why one was not successful in securing employment.  What an employer is doing by asking the question in the first place is asking the applicant to speculate, because the actual truth of the matter can never be known.  The best response, and one I would LOVE to use one day would be "I don't know.  I'm sure all 9000 companies that I've applied with has their own reasons.  Why don't you hire me and then it won't matter."

Now I'm just venting.

... sorry.

Tim

From: Eric Shubert <ejs@shubes.net>
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 3:21:33 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application

The significance isn't the crime itself, that you were tried, or what the verdict was. The significance is you falsified your application by omitting the fact that it occurred. Lying about it (or anything) on you application is a term of dismissal. It's that simple.

JD Austin wrote:
> I'm glad I don't work somewhere like that.  If I was acquitted/exonerated of a crime I wouldn't list it on an application either!  I can't think of a reason anyone would.  If it was a crime I'd been convicted of that was later expunged I would list it though; perhaps that is what you're referring to? 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:54, Tim Bogart <timbogart@yahoo.com <mailto:timbogart@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>    No.  Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough.  No, they did not
>    terminate people for having a brush with the law and being found
>    innocent or acquitted or for whatever reason, were not convicted.
>      They terminated those people for *FAILING TO DISCLOSE* their brush
>    with the law, and the accompanying details on the application.
>      Understandable in my mind.
>
>    Tim...
>
>    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    *From:* JD Austin <jd@twingeckos.com <mailto:jd@twingeckos.com>>
>
>    *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
>    <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>    <mailto:plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>>
>    *Sent:* Thu, September 16, 2010 2:48:46 PM
>
>    *Subject:* Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application
>
>    Hold on.. they fired people that were ACQUITTED of a crime?  That
>    seems a bit too far :(
>    If a court can't find them guilty how can an employer?
>
>
>    On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:38, Tim Bogart <timbogart@yahoo.com
>    <mailto:timbogart@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>        I like your response.  At a company with which I worked for many
>        years, many years ago used to send me email on a daily basis
>        listing folks who had been terminated.  Of those, many were
>        terminated because of falsehoods on their applications.  And of
>        those, not nearly, but ALL were due to information omitted
>        regarding some crime that the individual had committed.  And
>        they ran the gambit from robbery to murder.  Yes, murder,
>        believe it or not. But in fairness, of those, they involved
>        folks who had been tried for murder and had been exonerated by
>        some means (found not guilty, thrown out due to mistrial or
>        other reasons) but the point is that they had concealed the
>        facts regarding criminal activities (I mean seriously, how can
>        you forget to list something like that, or how can you think it
>        somehow doesn't qualify as something a potential employer would
>        not be interested?) that are easily checked.
>
>        Tim B.
>
>        I'm sticking with Grandpa Jones here...
>        "True is stranger than fact."
>        Hee-Haw
>
>
>
>    ---------------------------------------------------
>    PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>    <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
>    To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>    http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>


-- -Eric 'shubes'

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss