« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

No Unemployed Need Apply.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 4th, 2011 at 07:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’ll summarize this ABC article really quickly: the economy’s bad, which means that any company that’s actually hiring has a larger-than-average pool to draw from. The economy’s so bad and the pool’s getting so large, in fact, that companies are finding that they can get away with explicitly stating that they’re not interested in hiring the unemployed (as Hot Air notes, long-term unemployed individuals are historically more of a risk than the employed). This is upsetting a bunch of people, because it’s not actually illegal to do this. What’s not explicitly said in the article is that the young are the ones who are really going to take it in the chin, since a lot of companies are taking a blanket “no-unemployed at all” policy in order to keep this simple.

And those are the people who I wish to address directly.

I’d like you folks to contemplate something, as you’re sitting there with a congealing smile as some HR guy tells you that you can’t have a job because you don’t have a job:

  • Remember the 2008 election, when you were in college? How your buddy, we’ll call him “Bob,” got your floor or shared house together and out there stumping for Barack Obama?
  • Remember that warm, happy feeling that you got from going out there and getting Obama elected?
  • Remember how Obama promised you that if the stimulus got passed, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% – but if it did[n't], it would go above 9%?
  • Remember how right after the stimulus passed the unemployment rate went up to 10% and hung around there for a while? And now it’s sticking around 9%?
  • Remember that aforementioned warm, happy feeling?

Well, tell me: is that warm, happy feeling filling your belly? Or filling your gas tank? Paying off your insanely high student loans? Getting you out of your parents’ house? Is it in fact doing anything useful for you right now? No? Well. Try to remember that when Bob (who turned out to like this entire ‘political organizer’ thing, to the point where you kind of wish that he’d stop talking about it quite so much) calls you up later this year to talk about ‘putting the band back together for 2012.’ Or, to quote your favorite lefty professor from school – you know, the one with tenure, which means that he’s got a guaranteed salary until the entire academic system collapses – YOU NEED TO START THINKING IN TERMS OF YOUR CLASS INTERESTS HERE, SPARKY*.

Because no-one else will.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I know that use of the Old Enemy’s terms can bother some folks, but if you want to convert people, it helps if you can speak their tongue.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    non-persons. THe economic press has reminded me of what Cindy Sheehan called the Anti-Republican Anti-War Movement. THis sort of thing only counts as a scandal in a GOP administration.

  • ss396

    Since the racism / sexism / ageism game in the marketplace is about played out, and the LBGT thing is getting more accommodated, the EEOC will soon need a new cause in order to keep their jobs. Discrimination against the long-term unemployed looks to be a perfect candidate for their next pogrom. I expect that even as we speak they are working out regulations along the lines of “First fired; first hired” requirements.

  • NeoKong

    Cousins.
    Both lost sale rep jobs vending at Home Depot. Good money.
    Both started collecting unemployment.
    One moved in with his parents and the other got a job laboring for some plumber that was sort of a jerk.
    One was out of the house at 6:45 am and the second was sleeping till nine and filled his day with going out for cigarettes and smoking a bone in the park with his other unemployed friends.
    One collected for as long as humanly possible and the other guy got a second job at night.

    I’ve seen it. Unemployment ruins some people. They won’t take a job unless they think it’s worthy of their skills while other will do what they gotta’ do to pay their bills even if it sucks.
    I have spent my fair share of time in that second group.

    I know that sometimes there are people who are completely over qualified to work a cash register or be a laborer and could easily replace their boss but to a potential employer they look like someone who puts their own personal comfort aside and steps up to the plate fulfills their responsibilities.

    The unemployed can pick up some bad habits.

  • rsjt

    Personally, I have been advising people to take any job for just the reason you have perfectly explained. A lot of people are learning the hard wayin this recession.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch until someone invents a perpetual motion machine.

  • earlgrey

    Sounds like another excuse to give GE a ton of $$

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    necessity to eat?

  • acat

    there are a lot fewer family farms for the unemployed in the cities to return to…

    I am expecting to see a lot more home garden plots cropping up…

    Mew

  • earlgrey

    you are indicating that mroe people will be making a garden in their backyard to eat, which could happen.

  • Diogenes314

    With double digit unemployment across the country (not even counting the million plus who aren’t eligible to be counted anymore) and worse in places like Michigan and California, I’m pretty sure the victims of Pelosinomics spread accross the political spectrum. I’m glad for you that the long-term victims of the last four years of overregulation, hyperspending and economic uncertainty bring a smile to your face. The real question is why it seems the only thing discussed here is how much of a turncoat is for agreeing to 61 Billion vs 100 Billion in cuts, doing it week to week vs shutting down the government or whatever.

    Is anyone here actually interested in fixing this economy? Again, counting on spending cuts to reduce the deficit with record low revenues (due to excessive tax rates and regulation) is patently absurd. If the GOP spent half the time and effort focusing on reigning in regulators and giving small buisnesses tax incentives as they did on spending, it would do more to help the deficit than 100 Billion or 300 Billion in instant cuts.

    Oh yeah. And unemployment would go down as well. Leaving plenty of demand for low paying entry level jobs for former government employees.

  • chbroussard

    I remember about 50 years ago, my uncle was newly married and had a baby on the way. He was only 19, and now needed a job to support his new family. So what did he do? He mowed yards and sold fresh eggs door to door. You know, those jobs that Americans don’t want. We have made is very convenient and somewhat lucrative not to take a job that is “beneath” us. 99 weeks of unemployment?? What a mess we’ve made.

  • powertothepeople

    I can guarantee Moe was not stating all unemployed voted for Obama nor was he taking personal glee in their situation. His post was simply a well written knock at all those who thought Obama would swoop down in his red cape, wipe out their poverty whether self induced or present because of circumstances, thought he would wave a magic wand and all would be utopia, etc. He as well as everyone else realizes there are plenty of staunch conservatives and other republicans who are been devastated by not only this economy but by Obama’s decisions as well. And if I remember correctly, A few years back Moe shared his own struggle with unemployment. It was one of the main mods, even if I am wrong that it was Moe.

    What he said was right, and I promise it was not directed at you if you are or were long term unemployed or anyone else who did not side with Obama.

  • powertothepeople

    <<<<<<<<<Big Dummy as this was a reply to the above poster Diogenes314.

  • powertothepeople
  • Diogenes314

    Trust me, I wish I was still a clueless 20 something. Of course, I supported Reagan at 18, so it still wouldn’t apply. And I didn’t really mean to offend.

    The question still stands-are there any supply siders left here? Or is the idea of growing the economy and increasing revenues not ‘conservative’ enough for RS? If there have been any diaries focused on growing the economy (and actually bringing down unemployment) instead of obssessing on how much and how fast to cut discressionary spending (which in itself will be next to pointless without entitlement reform) I must have missed them.

  • Doc Holliday

    Jim Rodgers says the farmers will be driving Caddilics and the Wall Street types driving cabs.

  • NeoKong

    Cucumbers ain’t no bargain either and good salad dressing is almost as expensive as whiskey.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    in backyards for 3 years…need I say more on how advanced is the suffering from this recession?

  • powertothepeople

    values causes growth in itself. Not sure why you would feel this site and its members do not fully support the growth of the economy.

    One of the biggest factors that causes companies, who supply the jobs, to shut down growth and lower hiring or layoff is the piss poor economy and the uncertain future caused by the excessive debt. There are other factors such as taxation of business, regulations, etc, but the main factor is the excessive debt. Companies are scared as they have no clue how their dollar will be valued, no clue if their profit will be stolen to pay off this tremendous debt, etc.

    And you are correct, entitlement spending must be cut, but we have seen very profitable years, under Reagan as well, where entitlements existed and were widely used. Discretionary spending cuts are not enough, you are correct again, but it has to start somewhere. And considering who is sitting in the presidential seat plus who still has majority in the Senate, entitlements will not be cut at this point no matter what is tried. Just not going to happen and if anyone thinks it will, they are delusional.

    Government can not cause jobs to be created nor can they cause unemployment to go down. What they can do is create and environment where business can lower unemployment and start hiring. Obama is not doing that and up until now, neither were the repubs. But it is starting to move in the right direction, albeit too slowly, and cutting spending is the best way to start followed by lower taxes on business.

    And by the way, you did not offend me, I simply assumed from your post you were offended by what you believed Moe was inferring in his post. As I stated above. if I am correctly remembering, Moe struggled for some time with his own unemployment. Going on that, I am sure he was not nor would he lump all who have or are struggling under this idiot with the dummies who thought Obama was the end to all the wrongs. He was simply stating to them how badly they were deceived and how do they like their decision now.

  • acat

    Those tomatoes, unless you live in Texas or California, are coming up from South America … and the fuel to move ‘em ain’t cheap anymore.

    This cat is considering a greenhouse: http://www.amazon.com/Palram-Blackline-6×8-Greenhouse-Kit/dp/B003MSFCHI

    Mew

  • Michael Dugas

    Some stay here some don’t.. OJ is the worst….you think it would be cheap here but they make more money shipping it out.

  • voltron

    I currently employ about 120 technicians in my business. All I do is recruit, interview and put guys to work. Let me say this. I can’t find enough people. If I hired 20 people a week for the next 8 weeks I would still have trouble filling demand. (I am in Austin, TX)

    That being said. If someone submits a resume to me and they have been unemployed for over a year, it goes straight to the trash. It’s practically an “unwritten” company policy.

    I could talk at length about unemployment, but it is Friday night and I’m a few beers, in…

  • clearasday

    My daughter was active in the College Republicans in 2008 as her entire campus mobilized in frenetic energy to elect Barack Obama, while the CR’s endured insults, assaults and vandalism of their vehicles, posters and flyers. After the election, it felt like the opening scene in a horror movie as I watched all the happy young faces who didn’t realize the bad things waiting for them just around the corner. They had just helped elect the worst possible team to take us through a terrible economic crisis.

    This is the worst economy in my lifetime. It’s even difficult to get the low-level jobs people are suggesting. I’m curious how college grads are counted in the unemployment statistics. My daughter has been looking for work for six months. Entry-level jobs are few and far between. With the glut of candidates, employers that are even hiring are looking for more experience. So for now, she has started to develop her own products and will try to market them. Hope and change.

  • rickbull

    I have never had a course in economics, But when Thomas Sowell speaks, I listen; when he writes, I read. I have watched every video and read every editorial I could find from the late, great Milton Friedman. I have studied the works of Arthur Laffer, especially the advice he gave Ronald Reagan, and one recurring theme runs through the works of these men, all PhD Economists:

    Businesses don’t hire people because the economy is good; they do not lay off people because the economy is bad; they can’t be bribed into hiring someone. Businesses hire employees for ONE reason only: They need work done that will generate income, and there is no one in the company presently that can do this work.

    The idea that government can do anything to stimulate job growth in the private sector is a fallacy. Products and services have to be in such demand that present staffing levels cannot keep up with the workload — and the demand has to be sustained. Then — and only then — will companies hire more staff.

    As Thomas Sowell is fond of saying, the rookie in the White House has to learn to get government out of the way of the private sector in order for the private sector to grow. President Reagan knew this; apparently there are a large number in Washington who need to LEARN this.

  • Diogenes314

    One of the biggest factors that causes companies, who supply the jobs, to shut down growth and lower hiring or layoff is the piss poor economy and the uncertain future caused by the excessive debt. There are other factors such as taxation of business, regulations, etc, but the main factor is the excessive debt. Companies are scared as they have no clue how their dollar will be valued, no clue if their profit will be stolen to pay off this tremendous debt, etc.

    While debt is rarely seen by buisness as a positive, it is not the primary factor in discouraging investment and expansion. After all, the economy was booming (and the deficit steadily if too slowly decreasing) from 2003 to 2007. The uncertainty that has been crippling us the last four years is when and how much are they going nto tax the hell out of us, and what idiotic regulations are they going to put around our necks next? Squashing the tax hike in December and making an attempt to begin tackling the defecit is just a bandage on the wound. The passage of H.R. 4 a couple of days ago (squashing the Obamacare reporting requirement) was a good first step.

    The best thing that could be done for the economy right now (and the deficit in the long run) is

    1) Pass the 20% small buisness tax deduction.
    2) Create Congressional oversite over all new regulations (and a cost/benefit analysis of all the ones over the last four years).
    3) Defund Obamacare.
    4) Work on entitlement control
    5) Across the board spending cuts on the budget for 2012.

    In other words focus first on encouraging investment, growth and confidence in the economy.

    And for the record, we have survived exorbident debt before. In fact, Alexander Hamilton basicly created a national debt as a lure to investment-and created a booming economy as a result. The differance, of course, was having a surplus and steadily paying it down.

    Which we will never get to until growing the economy becomes job one.

  • rickbull

    I have been in the workforce for 37 years, and I have never been unemployed for more than 6 weeks. I held my first job for almost 7 years, and have been in my current one for 18.5. I have worked for 80 cents an hour and $30 an hour.

    The secret to finding and holding a job is fairly simple: always be willing to do the work that no one else wants to do.

  • Diogenes314

    Seeing the current situation in the Middle East and the price at the pump, this would be an excelent occasion for a bill opening up ANWR.

    Let the Senate/Obama explain killing that now to voters paying $4+ a gallon.

  • voltron

    The beer?

  • rickbull

    Any proposed tax increase becomes effective only after ten years has passed. Business plans typically are forward looking 8 – 10 years. They can be much more optimistic about growth if they can be sure of future liabilities. Nothing kills job growth like the cancerous growth of taxation.

    This would be a good companion to the 27th Amendment (Congressional compensation).

  • rickbull
  • Menlo

    A potential employer would be just as likely to dismiss the overqualified as the underqualified applicants. They want the individual who is just right. Hot Air used an example of an entry-level job ad to claim that the “unemployed” were not being hired. The presence of a work history can disqualify as much as the absence of one. Humility is not going to make up for it.

    We would all do well to remember that everyone’s circumstances are different, and I think it is wrong to paint those not employed (even a significant number of them) with a broad brush. Call me naive if you wish, but I do not believe that a significant number of those who are unemployed or are on some form of welfare are lazy or arrogant.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    Great comment.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I *am* specifically yelling at the 20-somethings who are now dealing with the problem that their 2008 advocacy spawned; and I *am* doing it in a deliberately nasty and provocative fashion, because if you want to teach a mule something, first you have to get the mule’s attention. So I can see where that might put people off.

  • Vegas_Rick

    first-time job seeker, I believe. Those just out of college who are probably responsible for our current White House occupant.

    That’s now I read it anyway.

  • NeoKong

    Would you want to hire the guy who took a lower paying job completely below his pay grade to get by or the the guy who is still wearing his his pajama bottoms at 11am in the morning…?

  • Menlo

    First of all, the whole point is that there are too many applicants and too few jobs. There is not going to be a choice of two individuals with opposite extremes, even in a better employment situation.

    Perhaps more importantly, employers only know what the applicant volunteers. I would have no way of knowing which applicants wear pajama bottoms at 11 AM, and I wouldn’t care. I’d need real evidence before attributing laziness to someone.

  • Diogenes314

    I’m just in favor of giving the dumb beasts who actually want to work a chance to do so.Four years is quite enough, besides we need to clear out some of those entry level positions for the future ex-public ‘servants’. Besides, the economic meltdown actually began in 2007, not with The Planet Healer’s election. Nothing like having a bunch of socialists take over both houses of Congress to make investors and employers think twice about investing, expanding and hiring.

  • Menlo

    How do you know what’s behind a resume gap? What makes you or anyone else assume laziness or a bad employee?

    If you dismiss on the basis of a resume gap, I think you are engaging in a bad and unethical business practice.

  • Diogenes314

    What is the ethical mandate to hire someone who hasn’t been employed for 12 months?

    As far as ‘bad’, that’s debatable. Someone unemployed for a year in Michigan or the People’s Republic of Kali (where the real unemployment rate is closer to 20 than 10 percent) might me a better gamble than a similar candidate in a state likeTexas that actually likes capitalists. But bottom line, if you’re paying someone for a service, you should be able to use whatever criteria you want, no matter how retarded-and then let the market decide.

  • Menlo

    There is no ethical mandate to hire such a person. There is a mandate (ethically) not to make such baseless accusations. A person may have been battling an illness, caring for a family member, or in any one of a number of circumstances beyond his or her control. Some people are out of work for many years for legitimate reasons. It’s never good to assume the worst or best of anyone until you know all the facts.

    There usually is no way to know what criteria employers use, let alone prove it. While I do not think it should be left to “the market,” I also don’t think there is any reasonable way for government to properly regulate it.

    So yes, it is unethical to not even consider the applicant. However, I think hearing explicitly that someone has been “unable to find a job” for a year would be legitimate cause for concern in some jobs.

  • powertothepeople

    Although I must agree with Diogenes314 that no company should have to hire anyone and have the right to weed out applicants any way they see fit, I too am bothered by an employer who in one breath says he can not hire enough people yet then turns around and states anyone with a gap in employment longer than 12 months goes straight to the trash can.

    I have been on every side of the employment business from being a grunt up to being a hiring manager and even having my own business. I would never trash a resume based on employee gaps without having a good explanation first. I would not want to work for him based on his policy as I would already know me and him would never get along.

    My friend was an accountant for 12 years until his son was diagnosed with cancer. Chad and his wife set down when the child became quite ill and decided who would be better off staying at home. She made more plus the company she worked for was much more stable and all their benefits were with her employer. He resigned so he could care for his kid and did so for over 2 years until he passed. Luckily he did not run into an employer like the above guy and was able to return to work soon after.

    Breaks in employment can mean something bad or mean nothing at all. They can also be due to valid human reasons where a person either could not work due to their own sickness or injury or because of caring for their loved ones. To set a policy that a break in employment for however many months or years is an absolute killer of possible employment seems to me to be arrogant and absurd. But he has the right to be that way, and decent folks have a right to ignore his pleas for employees. And considering the economy today, a year out of work is not uncommon nor does it mean laziness. Even “lowly” jobs are being picky and refusing to pick up educated people many times because they know, same as always, these folks are gone the moment a job opens. They want people who will stay for years so their hiring practices have not changed that much.

    His business his way, but you are right, something is missing in that company.

  • Diogenes314

    Especially in a shitty economy, a lot would prefer a slacker with no prospects of improving his sitution in the future to someone who is going to move on as soon as the tide turns.

  • Diogenes314

    Just a matter of whether you want to use arbitrary and borderline idiotic standards when deciding who to hire. If an employer wants to weed out engineers with 20 years experience because they have long hair or a foriegn sounding surname, then more power to their competitors.

    Let the market decide. And if you are someone who is being shot down in a slow market for said reasons (or because you’ve been out of work too long), just remeber those employers when the tide turns and they come looking for competent help.

  • wennejunk

    If you have 1000 resumes to parse for a technical position…and 1000 the next week, and so on – how do you filter for the best candidates?

    If you toss out all those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, you automatically increase the quality of the remaining candidates simply because those remaining are more likely to have relevant and fresh technical skills – less likely to require training to become quickly productive.

    Will you miss some gems? Yes, of course. There is always the exceptional case, but a manager/employer’s job is to quickly find the best candidate and you have to filter in some way otherwise you make a career out of looking for employees.

    We all filter like that in hundreds of ways, most of them unconscious.

    If Voltron has 120 techs and is hiring more in a down economy he/she is doing something right as a business person – their business is growing.

    Voltron – I’m in Austin as well. I’m also well employed, so not looking for work – what industry are you in?

  • CJB68

       Having been out of work since my temp job got cut off back in October of ’10, I’ve been going through all the motions of seeking employment.  I’ve gone to government-funded job seeker workshops (funded by ’08 Stimulus money) to improve my resume writing, research and interview skills.  I’ve been to the state Department of Employment and Training to speak with a case worker on a monthly basis.  And I’ve even gotten training and certification in operating forklift trucks at their suggestion, as they expect the logistics and warehousing industry to be the first thing to start moving when the economy gets moving again.

       So far, all I’ve gotten was an interview from prospective employers on average of once a month.  Usually, without a follow-up other than a “sorry, but we’ve found someone better qualified.”

       I’ve had over 20 years combined work experience behind me, with hardly a blemish.  I’ve been up and down the scale, from machine operator, to pizza delivery driver, to office keyboard jockey, to scanner operator and warehouse order picker.  I can do all of these jobs, if they’d tell me to come do them.  I’m not caring right now if it pays me $8.00/hour or $30.00.

       One thing that did get my attention when it happened was that when I tried getting hired into the position that was opening at one of my earlier worksites (for which I was temping at the time), the managers who interviewed me said that my Associate degree in computer systems made me “overqualified”.  For keying customer data into a database and organizing paperwork to be filed.  I’d have moved up to something else eventually, but it seemed like that was what I was supposed to start out doing.

       I’ve started wondering if the “temp” worker thing did as much damage to my employment prospects as being unemployed for extended periods of time will.  Think of it: you’re being farmed out to various workplaces to fill gaps in their labor force until they don’t need you any more, just to keep their production going along, or to help finish off a big project that they lacked manpower to complete within a deadline.  I recalled someone telling me that a term, “nomad”, was being cooked up to describe people like myself who ended up as temp workers, implying that I wasn’t trusted to stay with a company for life.

       It may not just be the economy, or the attitudes being indoctrinated into kids in schools these days.  There may be some businesses that’re taking up practices which are actually harming more people than they were meant to weed out unproductive or counter-productive potential employees.

  • taxpayer1234

    Many recent college grads have the same attitude–they won’t take a job unless, as you say, it’s “worthy of their skills.”

    It’s time to grow up, college grads. Life ain’t pretty. How you deal with it will set the tone for your future.

  • Common_Cents

    even with higher prices for produce, inputs are increasing as well. Fertilizer, seed, fuel, etc….

  • powertothepeople

    as stated above and you are correct, his rule has nothing to do with ethics.

  • powertothepeople

    have a 1000 or he would not be behind in hiring so badly.

    And hogwash, most people explain gaps in employment, so lets not play stupid shall we and act as if a manager can not filter a break in employment and see the reason and make a human decision as to whether or not the gap was necessary. If there are gaps on a resume that are unexplained, that is a great reason to trash the resume as they were not professional enough to explain giving the prospective employer a reason. But an explanation should be read and considered and neither takes any more time for the hiring manager to do. And lets not play coy and act as if a year or slightly more all of a sudden makes one so irrelevant in their field that they have lost their edge. There may be a few examples of that, it is not the norm.

    Filtering is his right any way he chooses to do it. But his flippant removal of people based only on an arbitrary length of unemployment, not ever knowing or caring for the reason why, shows his arrogance. And it is not common practice to do so no matter who says it is. You are correct we filter as humans, but his across the board rule was not done subconsciously (not unconscious) and it shows I would never want to work for him.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    going around expressing with certainty how the sun was going to come out on 1/20/09.

    How naive.

  • voltron

    I didn’t say “gaps in employment”.

    I didn’t say home taking care of a sick child.

    I said unemployed. By that I mean collecting unemployment. Many people will send me an explanation as to why they haven’t been working for the last year along with their resume. There are many valid reasons for not working (illness, taking care of children, going to school). They are all perfectly acceptable. If you choose not to disclose this information to me after being specifically asked to do so, then you have a problem following directions and I don’t want to interview you. Wennejunk is correct, it is a way to filter out the hundreds of resumes that I get. I need people, but the wrong people will do more harm to my business than good. The reason we are so successful is that we put the right people in the right places.

    What I will not accept is the excuse “I couldn’t find any work” or “unemployment check paid me enough to get by, so I took it easy for a while”. I can understand a couple of months, even 6. However, over a year of sitting on your butt, because unemployment paid you enough, shows a lack of reasonable work ethic or a mindset reflective of an attitude I do not want in my company.

    I will also say that the circular file is not the end of it. I get resumes multiple times from the same person. I might also get phone calls. If someone wants a job bad enough to harass me multiple times about it, I will give them the interview, because it shows me they are serious about getting back to work. Most of the time however my initial instincts are correct.

    Wennejunk, I do work on commercial low voltage and electrical systems. Installation, maintenance, and care of said systems.

    And yes, it is a fairly common practice. I don’t live in a bubble.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    would mean leaving money on the table.

    Sometimes it may be a long term view in a desire to avoid the inevitable results of present crappy service. Or often to free the more productive members of their teams to do higher value-added or to allow the salesforce to engage in more direct revenue-generating work.

    Consider the last time you hired someone to do something to your house “because the economy was good.” I might forgo something because “the economy was bad”, but I’ve never hired someone to put an ugly addition onto my house because “the economy was good”.

  • voltron

    Just reading what you wrote above I see a few things that may help you find work.

    First, the temp worker thing doesn’t hurt you in my eyes. That shows me you are trying and willing to do whatever it takes to support yourself and your family.
    What does hurt you is all the different jobs, especially short term ones. It’s this statement that most concerns me…

    “I?ve been up and down the scale, from machine operator, to pizza delivery driver, to office keyboard jockey, to scanner operator and warehouse order picker. I can do all of these jobs, if they?d tell me to come do them. I?m not caring right now if it pays me $8.00/hour or $30.00.”

    No employer wants to hear that. I want to hear that you have dreamed for years of working in my industry and that is your life goal to work for my company and retire here. I get guys that tell me all the time “I’m just looking for anything!” Unless you have some training or experience that I am looking for, that statement is going to hurt you. Send resumes that are specifically geared towards the job you are applying for. This may mean writing a few.

    My last suggestion is to be persistent. Just because you don’t get a call back the first time is no reason to give up. Keep bugging them until the either break down and give you the interview or directly tell you no.

    I wish you much success in you job hunt!

  • pastisprolog

    I’m not beling glib. When I left D.C. and an IT career associated with trade associations and later developing software for government contractors, I did’nt have a job waiting for me back in my home state (I was getting married). After my emergency funds started getting low, I was able to get a job as a warehouse supervisor and driver for a local carpet company (the warehouse supervisor part was rerally more like clean up this mess and organize our inventory).

    I went to the usual head-hunters without success. up to that point I was always recruited out of a position. Remember those days?

    One head-hunter told me to make a phone call and ask to talk to a department supervisior who wasdn’t allowed to use his firm. I did, and had a professional position that day. I was offered the job on the spot.

    I explained about the position I had just taken, and he told me, “It’s better to work for a living doing an honest job than to be idle.” The other people understood what happened when I called to resign so soon. They were very gracious about it.

    Back then, references werre allowed to comment for the record on one’s past performance; now they can’t. This makes it hard to tell from the resume who does real work and who takes credit for the work of others. The screening process is so bad we once had to hire a man I would not recommend. He turned out to be someone who hid from his supervisors, bullied his subordinates, laid blame on everyone else and took credit for the work that got done in spite of his bad management. I was the first to quit, and before the year was out, almost everyone else did too. He had a great resume and his previous emplyers couldn’t/wouldn’t tell us anything useful.

    I am since retired, although I’ve taught and done other things since then. I am also very grateful to be out of the job market. And, no, I’m not wealthy. We get by and I have an older special-needs daughter who keeps me very busy and happy.

    All I can say is, stick with it and don’t give up. Do something, anytthing honest if you need to. I’d haul trash if I needed to, or clean washrooms if that was all I could get and the money was needed to pay the bills. If a propective employer doesn’t understand that kind of work ethic, you probably wouldn’t want to work for him anyway.

    All the best.

  • drivlikejehu

    Well I’m not on unemployment since I graduated law school in ’09 and haven’t had a real job yet. I worked for a while just to say I was working, while actually losing money because I had to pay for daycare. So ultimately I had to quit and be a stay at home dad while looking for a real job. Most regular employers steer clear of law grads and the legal job market is horrible. I strongly opposed Obama in 2008 but I’m just as screwed as the dumb kids who supported him. I don’t find anything particularly satisfying about the situation. A lot of people who have always had a job seem to think you can just roll up your sleeves and everything will turn out fine, but that’s not the reality anymore.

    And as bad as Obama is, the real problem originated under Clinton and George W. Bush, with the rise of various market and asset bubbles- most devastatingly in real estate.

    Anyway, if anyone in the Washington, D.C. metro area needs someone with strong writing and analytical skills, I’d love to pitch myself. My email is the same as my redstate handle, plus @yahoo.com.

  • powertothepeople

    had you stated I do not hire a lazy bum who has sat on their butt sucking up tax dollars for a years or more. But you said this:

    “That being said. If someone submits a resume to me and they have been unemployed for over a year, it goes straight to the trash. It?s practically an ?unwritten? company policy.”

    You do not clarify that a year long gap is not enough to trash their resume, you simply stated unemployment for one year is an automatic disqualifying aspect.

    Now, as I stated above, you have every right to hire who you want and to use any filter you so choose, and that is an absolute right. And if your filter is not a gap of a year in unemployment but a year or more sitting on entitlement pay, we would absolutely agree with each other. But there is quite a difference between being unemployed for a year or even 10 and sitting on unemployment for a year or more and the wording should be quite different.

    And I would also agree that companies do tend to back away from people who spend long periods of time sucking on the government teat known as unemployment, but not so much someone who has simply not had a job for an extended time.

    I would also like to restate that someone who has their head screwed on straight and is wanting to make a good impression would state up front why their were gaps as to make sure the prospective employer knows the reason. A poor resume is a quick killer of a hopeful job.

    But again, this seems to be a poor communication issue rather than a philosophical disagreement.

  • voltron

    As for the poor communication, see the last sentence of my original post. :)

  • congressworksforus

    … the cold weather has had a real impact on the tomato crop, even in Mexico. You only have to look at the toms that are on the store shelf to see that. Wendy’s is only putting tomatoes on burgers now if you specifically request it…

  • JadedByPolitics

    and “some” didn’t like when I said as a hiring manager I would NOT hire someone who sat on their tail for 99wks because to me personally it showed they had no ingenuity to get a job, even if it had been a job at 7-11 it would have shone a propensity to care. It is the last generation of lazy people that we are dealing with who somehow “felt” they should wait for the job that paid the closet to what they had made prior. I lived through the downturn in the 80s and the early 2000s and I nor my husband felt it was beneath us to one work at Arbys (I did in 85) or Pizza Hut (my husband in 2000) was beneath us. The Arbys job was a job, job the Pizza Hut job was a second job but no one would accuse either of us of being lazy or believing that we deserved more then what we had at any given time in our lives.

    I can only hope that I have given that same work ethic to both of my children who are now in this downturn with one working full time and another working part time and going to college and neither in a job they like but both knowing they need to earn their way in the world.

  • congressworksforus

    Follow up.

    The day after an interview, send a note thanking the person for the opportunity to interview. 2-3 days later, a phone call. 2-3 days later, another.

    Most people think this is bugging someone and off-putting.

    Au contraire; it shows me you WANT the job.

    The other thing I strongly recommend has to do with actually getting the interview.

    Whenever you want to apply to a company, see who you know who knows someone at the company. (LinkedIn is good for this.) Most companies use their HR dept. as a filter; sometimes the best candidates don’t ever get through this process, but getting a copy of your resume directly on the desk of the hiring manager through someone who works there and is willing to put in a short, good word for you, can be the difference between even getting an interview and not. And I can personally attest that this works.

  • acat

    The few headhunter types I talked to last year said that they wanted me because “you’ve got a job”… They didn’t want someone who was unemployed, even if they were “sorta kinda” looking.

    I don’t say that I like it, but … it is a valid position for management to take… if they want “entrepreneurial” employees, that is, those with some “go get ‘em” attitude, they don’t want the “99ers”.

    Mew

  • GregInFla

    And hoping to hatch some more. Nothing is nicer than getting fresh eggs and free fertilizer and no grubs to worry about (free food for the hens). Our favorite breed is Java, which are endangered and date back to our Founding Fathers. We’ve got one thus far, with two Orpingtons. If anyone asks, we have an “aviary” not livestock. My wife is also just started into container gardening which is much easier than trying to garden in the sandy soil here.

  • Doc Holliday

    farmers want to maximize their crop. Historically farmers overproduce in good times and crash the price of soft commodities. But that was when Europe and the USA were really the only games in town. Now we have so many more people moving into the middle class and consuming more and better foods. I am not saying the game has changed, but their are just so many more players.

    You know the saying about how the best way to have made money in the Califonia gold rush was to sell the picks and shovels. That is the thing about fertilizer the fertilizer companies will always have demand with high prices, whether the farmers maximize profit or not.

  • biglarryk56

    the unions and statists have pretty much turned the city into a wasteland…let’s just bulldoze it over, and there’ll be plenty of land for farming in an urban setting. Problem solved through free-market allocating of unproductive resources.

  • acat

    to Detroit, that is.

    Bulldoze the blight, turn it into greenspace. The healthy neighborhoods become, if not legally separate entities, then at least physically distinct ones… the rest goes back to being Michigan agribusiness.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • GregInFla
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine