OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application

[Tim Bogart]

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 at shubes.net>
To: plug-discuss at 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 at yahoo.com 
><mailto:timbogart at 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 at twingeckos.com <mailto:jd at twingeckos.com>>
> 
>     *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
>     <plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>     <mailto:plug-discuss at 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 at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:timbogart at 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 at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>     <mailto:PLUG-discuss at 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 at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20100916/8c13d858/attachment.html>