Teacher: We can't teach you unless you already know the answers. Waiter: We can't serve you unless you're already full. Interviewer: We can't hire you unless you already have a job.
Actually, only hiring people that already have a job makes perfect sense, if you understand how businesses are run and how unemployment fraud works.
.
It is documented that a fair percentage of of people getting jobs these days only get them in order to work for 6 months. They then quit the job and are eligible for unemployment again. This happens A LOT.
.
In order to counter this, companies are only hiring people that already have jobs. This makes it far more likely that the person is really interested in having a job, and won’t leave in 6 months.
The problem isn’t first time jobseekers not getting hired for six-figure salaries, it is skilled employees being laid off and being disqualified from the hiring process. Most employers now require an online application, and any gap in employment prevents your application from actually being seen by a human. This is where the underemployed come from: professionals working the retail and burger flipping jobs to try to hang on to their homes, preventing the first time workers from getting employed.
grayhares – you are obviously on something, maybe tea. I know a lot of folks, very competent, at the top of their field, who have been laid off. And they aren’t looking to only work 6 months and then collect unemployment. At $150 a week, unemployment only goes so far. And certainly not worth staying on the couch for. Try feeding a family of 5, keeping your house, and insuring your kids on $150 a week.
yah, grayhaired is pretty close to right. i’ve had a terrible time finding and hiring in this environment. the only thing he’s wrong about here is that they quit after 6 months to get back on unemployment.
they can’t quit and collect (usually), so they just stop doing their job, so you’re forced to fire them.
and while they’re not doing their job, they are driving away my customers.
i thought it was better to hire the unemployed, but now i’m a believer in hiring the employed or recently employed.
@saltwater = everything you say is true, and it makes sense, but it is not the reality i’m seeing in the 50-150k salary range.
Actually, the way the last panel/scenario works is like this: “We can’t hire you unless you have the skills needed for this job that can only be acquired by working here.”
I had to keep a part-time job for a while just to avoid putting a time gap in my resume. It’s a sign of the time, employers do not like to see idle time between careers.
“Too good to flip burgers? Think of the organization skills you can learn at MickyD’s.Too good to stock shelves?Too good to sweep floors?Too good to pick fruit?”
So I go to a four year university to learn law, finance, or psychology to go out and get a job cleaning toilets? How does that benefit those people seeking jobs in the professions they studied for? You did manual labor and retired from it. Might as well not have gone to college if that’s what people those people have to look foward to.
“PETER PRINCIPLE”! It explains the “Peter Principle”, and how gray got ahead? At my wife’s workplace, they had a TERRIBLE employee come in just a few months ago. Everyone was ready to contract a “hit” on her. She came back off a “sick leave” to announce she was taking a different job, in the “big city” at higher pay, and used her employment here as her key “entry” to the next job. The employees all cheered her departure, and out of kindness, forwarded to the “new sucker” just how bad she really is.
I saw the principle at work in large industry, and government. The real secret is, it has to be a large enough employer in most cases to let such bad hires occur, well if you rule out nepotism. Which, when nepotism can make you president, I guess that IS the American way??
@Fairportfan2,ah, if that were only the case. look up what constitutes ‘cause’.
not doing your job is not considered ‘cause’. ‘cause’ in practicality requires criminal charges.
procedurally, the government sends you a form asking to confirm dates of employement and pay. So long as the former employee worked CLOSE to the number of days (they don’t even have to qualify, just so long as they are close), and made the right range of money, they get UI for two years.
halfabug over 12 years ago
Seems as tho many truck drivers wwere able to do it. might have tried an independent guy willing to let you drive.
grayhares01 over 12 years ago
Actually, only hiring people that already have a job makes perfect sense, if you understand how businesses are run and how unemployment fraud works.
.
It is documented that a fair percentage of of people getting jobs these days only get them in order to work for 6 months. They then quit the job and are eligible for unemployment again. This happens A LOT.
.
In order to counter this, companies are only hiring people that already have jobs. This makes it far more likely that the person is really interested in having a job, and won’t leave in 6 months.
.
Class dismissed…
Fourcrows over 12 years ago
The problem isn’t first time jobseekers not getting hired for six-figure salaries, it is skilled employees being laid off and being disqualified from the hiring process. Most employers now require an online application, and any gap in employment prevents your application from actually being seen by a human. This is where the underemployed come from: professionals working the retail and burger flipping jobs to try to hang on to their homes, preventing the first time workers from getting employed.
SaltWaterCroc over 12 years ago
grayhares – you are obviously on something, maybe tea. I know a lot of folks, very competent, at the top of their field, who have been laid off. And they aren’t looking to only work 6 months and then collect unemployment. At $150 a week, unemployment only goes so far. And certainly not worth staying on the couch for. Try feeding a family of 5, keeping your house, and insuring your kids on $150 a week.
dannysixpack over 12 years ago
yah, grayhaired is pretty close to right. i’ve had a terrible time finding and hiring in this environment. the only thing he’s wrong about here is that they quit after 6 months to get back on unemployment.
they can’t quit and collect (usually), so they just stop doing their job, so you’re forced to fire them.
and while they’re not doing their job, they are driving away my customers.
i thought it was better to hire the unemployed, but now i’m a believer in hiring the employed or recently employed.
@saltwater = everything you say is true, and it makes sense, but it is not the reality i’m seeing in the 50-150k salary range.
alan.gurka over 12 years ago
Actually, the way the last panel/scenario works is like this: “We can’t hire you unless you have the skills needed for this job that can only be acquired by working here.”
DenverMosaic over 12 years ago
I had to keep a part-time job for a while just to avoid putting a time gap in my resume. It’s a sign of the time, employers do not like to see idle time between careers.
DenverMosaic over 12 years ago
Not quite clear, are you now working two jobs each? Or you just mean to say your job and hers?
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
“Too good to flip burgers? Think of the organization skills you can learn at MickyD’s.Too good to stock shelves?Too good to sweep floors?Too good to pick fruit?”
So I go to a four year university to learn law, finance, or psychology to go out and get a job cleaning toilets? How does that benefit those people seeking jobs in the professions they studied for? You did manual labor and retired from it. Might as well not have gone to college if that’s what people those people have to look foward to.
sufferingisoverrated over 12 years ago
And we can’t insure you unless you are completely healthy.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
“PETER PRINCIPLE”! It explains the “Peter Principle”, and how gray got ahead? At my wife’s workplace, they had a TERRIBLE employee come in just a few months ago. Everyone was ready to contract a “hit” on her. She came back off a “sick leave” to announce she was taking a different job, in the “big city” at higher pay, and used her employment here as her key “entry” to the next job. The employees all cheered her departure, and out of kindness, forwarded to the “new sucker” just how bad she really is.
I saw the principle at work in large industry, and government. The real secret is, it has to be a large enough employer in most cases to let such bad hires occur, well if you rule out nepotism. Which, when nepotism can make you president, I guess that IS the American way??
dannysixpack over 12 years ago
@Fairportfan2,ah, if that were only the case. look up what constitutes ‘cause’.
not doing your job is not considered ‘cause’. ‘cause’ in practicality requires criminal charges.
procedurally, the government sends you a form asking to confirm dates of employement and pay. So long as the former employee worked CLOSE to the number of days (they don’t even have to qualify, just so long as they are close), and made the right range of money, they get UI for two years.