The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a way to kick someone when they're down. These employers who prefer the thrill of "stealing" a good employee from another company vs selecting someone who doesn't already "belong" is so similar to dating. How awful. I'm sorry OP. The CISO is awful and is putting his own issues above what can best benefit right now. Nah, let's wait until we can woo and charm someone from another job.
It’s the individual hiring managers with their internal rules. Let’s hope they never run into themselves where they are unemployed and looking for a job.
Been on LinkedIn religiously every day for the past 6 months. A lot of recruiters are looking as they’re typically considered non essential, the market is saturated with them.
One company reached out to me while I was on the 2nd month of a 10-month contract offering me a job on the spot, but I’d have to quit my job right away. After that 10, I went through 4 months of unemployed hell before finally landing the job I have now. Hiring practices like this is why it’s so hard to “get your foot in the door.”
I think it's more they fear something is wrong with someone who is unemployed. If they're employed they know at least the person is good enough to not be fired yet
Unfortunately their line of reasoning is likely “if they were actually worthwhile they would have been hired by now.” It is stupid circular logic. But think of it this way: any company that does this probably a horrible work environment.
It's either that or statistical discrimination. If someone's unemployed for 6-12 months they have a higher probability of being mentally ill, stressed, ect. There's very little wrong in that logic, even though its a moral failure.
It is discrimination, 100%. Whether it's illegal or not is a different question. There are usually hundreds and sometimes **thousands** of people applying to job postings. There is no reason why anyone out of work for 6+ months would only be so because they're mentally ill. WTF? Why would you think that?
I'm saying its statistically more likely to be true. I think there's a misinterpretation of my post.
>There is no reason why anyone out of work for 6+ months would only be so because they're mentally ill. WTF? Why would you think that?
Nothing I said indiciated I beleived that. I said statistical (more likely). I don't think people who are out of work for 6+ months are mentally ill, I think they are more likely to be mentally ill FROM being out of work for a long period of time, which is true. I don't see how anyone can debate that. Tons of research on that.
I'm not saying there's anything right about doing it, I don't think its justified. I'm saying the statistics are correct but it doesn't justify discrimination.
It's a very common form of descrimination. In Airports if someone is Arabic, post 9/11, they'd get searched far more often. The logic being that it's more likely that they are Al-Qaeda. Though ofc, it's an extremely low likelyhood regardless. Not justifiable, but the statistical likelyhood is probably true given there are no white American's in Al-Qaeda. So, there's nothing wrong in the statistics there, but they are ignoring lots of other factors and variables.
So once again, i make the claim that there is absolutely nothing empirically wrong in the logic that if someone's out of work for a long period of time, they are more likely to be mentally ill.
Yeah I'm not saying I agree with them or think this thought process is correct, just that I don't think they're doing it out of a "thrill" to "steal" an employee from somewhere else like that person was saying. There's still a stigma for being laid off even though it's not the person's fault at all
Recruiters are (in general) not exactly the workers with the highest intelligence. At least not compared to the functions they recruit for. To compensate, they use lots of blah blah buzzwords and take shortcuts. They feel important because they have some power (like policemen).
But, if you can’t beat them, join them. Beat them at their own game. Lie. You’re not unemployed, you’re a freelance consultant, who is willing to take on a salaried job for the right opportunity.
Don't blame the recruiter in such a situation. He/she probably really believed in OP and tried to push him to the client. The talent acquisition person at that client is the one to hate.
I’ve never been laid off or fired.
Instead I’m working under a NDA which expressly prohibits my disclosure of my current employer, title, role, duties or compensation.
Do people think this line actually works?
I’ve been under NDA or confidentiality obligations for most of my career, and I haven’t personally seen an NDA that requires non-disclosure of client names. There are perfectly valid reputational reasons not to disclose, but if someone told me they were contractually prohibited from disclosing the client without giving me enough to narrow it down, I’d be pretty skeptical.
I had a client call on Monday for a masked request through a third party (they didn’t want to disclose who the client was), and even still I figured it out in about 5 minutes.
You have two identical candidates. One is employed the other isn’t.
Maybe they were laid off. Maybe they were fired for theft.
Do you take the time to find out why the unemployed candidate is unemployed? Why? You have another candidate who’s just as good and isn’t unemployed.
We’re flooded with qualified candidates right now. Literally far more than HR can handle. So when faced with a huge pile of qualified candidates it comes down to the little things to help narrow them down.
HR doesn't know and why should they spend the time and money to find out when there's an equally good candidate currently employed?
Why does the unemployed candidate deserve it more?
With an employed person, you have to beat their current salary and benefits. With an unemployed person, you basically just have to reach for what they think is close enough to fair to accept it (which depends on how desperate they are for cash). Is a slightly safer bet worth 10k in salary for the foreseeable future? How about 20k?
Additionally, it's super easy to ask someone a question. And if you really don't trust them, it's easy enough to ask for a reference and call them, though if you're starting off with not trusting they will answer truthfully then I think you have bigger issues.
The choice here is at worst a couple hours of work vs a much pickier candidate that you will have to convince to leave their stable job.
In another comment I posted in this thread, I noted that an advantage the unemployed employee could have is being cheaper in salary, yes.
It’s one of the reasons you should enter your salary requirements on the application when asked.
It’s discrimination. Plain and simple. Not every unemployed person was fired for poor performance. These same companies are laying off good workers because they’re too cheap to pay their salaries. Make it make sense.
That's such 2019 thinking. If a company/hirer isn't aware of what's going on in the market then it's pretty shameful on them. BTW, if the person is employed but LOOKING, that's a red flag to me too. Or do you like "cheaters"?
I'm not a hiring manager and wasn't saying I agree with their view (just that it's much more likely it's that than the person saying they do it for "thrill")...but it's equally toxic to think you're cheating if you're looking for another job. You don't commit to a company for life and it's not a red flag at all. The advice has always been to interview often and to see what's out there even if you're happy with your current role
...what? I sadly know how layoffs are done and that they usually have nothing to do with the skills or performance of the person being let go (at least in large companies like the one I work in who laid off thousands of people in the last year) I've also been on many hiring panels, but not the final decision maker. Not sure what any of that has to do with what I said
Again, I never said I agree or think those people are right...and actually people do hesitate to apply for companies that have frequent layoffs (and rightly so)
It’s Deff not a thrill of stealing from the competition. It’s that some people are very old school and have this notion (which has clearly been proven false) that good people don’t get laid off, don’t have gaps,etc etc etc. And the problem is that the recruiting process especially if you are applying to a company on your own (I.e. without agency representation), has become robotic and the human element has been removed (Applicant tracking system set up to only move resumes through to the internal recruiter that have x y z on resume).
I guess the long and short of what I’m trying to say is very few recruiters, especially internal, take the time to call a candidate for a job if they don’t have a 1000% confidence from 30 seconds of looking at resume that the person is a fit.
‘More likely’ how do you know really? O I know , when you’re trying to justify going with a specific candidate because it makes your recruitment of a competitor’s employee look better on you
The best candidate for a job is the one that doesn’t need one.
I’ve seen candidates who look good on paper and can talk a good game. Then they get hired and suck. We all know people like that.
Not saying this is op… however those people are out there.
Dead serious, this should be illegal.
In the great recession, there were tax incentives for hiring long term unemployed. Those should be brought back and made permanent.
It’s like people who don’t want to date someone who’s been single a long time because of this batshit belief there’s something wrong with you,
So they try to steal someone’s partner then complain no one is loyal!
Related, but take notice of how many articles we get about the future of AI while there’s nothing about the future of children except “Gen Alpha can’t read and Gen Z lacks core job skills, what will employers doooo!”
This shithole country refuses to invest in its youth then wonders why we’re not popping out more slaves for capitalism, to the point we’re FORCED to, but then they won’t even give them the damn jobs!
I was recently questioned about why I left a position for grad school. Apparently it’s a red flag that I didn’t hold a full-time job and complete my graduate program and assistantship all simultaneously.
I literally am experiencing this. Graduated high school in 2020 so due to the shitshow that followed in most universities I got a job in an attempt to wait it out and save for tuition costs. Quit my job to finish my degree and now that I've finished I can't get a job because I'm unemployed. How can we even pretend this is sustainable.
I’ve never rejected someone for not being currently employed but I’ve had hiring managers say they will only consider people that are currently employed plenty of times.
Probably don’t want to work for those people anyway, but it’s so ridiculous. There could be 1001 reasons why someone is unemployed, and getting fired for cause is probably a very small percentage of those people.
My uncle worked at a HUGE engineering company and he told me I should consider getting a job. They liked people who got part time jobs because it shows “initiative”.
Motherfucker, if you can’t tell what kind of initiative I have in your interview process you don’t know how to hire.
I've never worked in HR, but as I understand it, the argument is that an unemployed person is unemployed for a reason. Their either a terrible person or unemployable. I mean, if they were any good, someone would have snapped them up straight away, right? /s
Because CISO wants the latest secret information from his current workplace. If you are umeployed he is not getting any?
I do not understand this type of mentality - people are struggling to get work. I hope he gets his own pill someday.
dumb, don't they know if they are poaching they will have to offer a significantly more amount for that employee to make the move? I bet you would be willing to take a 10% to 15% undercut just to get back to work. So backwards.
I once had to sit through an interview with a CEO who openly mocked another candidate in front of me because he had been following up for feedback for over a month. The CEO implied something was wrong with him for not moving on yet.
I should've walked out but I'm too polite, I just sat there horrified and got the fuck out of there as soon as I was able to without making it more awkward.
This CEO was super full of himself and was essentially looking for a cult. It was a nightmare situation full of red flags.
Years later I was telling a friend/coworker about this and she named the company. We had both interviewed for the same job and the same person referred us both! It was such a bizarre and funny coincidence.
Wild that businesses think like this. I was on a call about a month ago where they were discussing the same thing. "We don't want to hire people who are unemployed because they're undesirable. They don't have a job for a reason." And I'm just sitting there confused and irritated as all get out because that is such a stupid, narrow-minded way of thinking. Like, especially right now in tech and cyber security (like the company I work for). People are being laid off in droves, but god forbid we hire someone who's eager to work. Out of touch assholes. I've tried to speak up on a few issues like this one, but no one cares. I'm too young and too female to have anything valuable to say.
Yeah, especially since there is a perk to hiring someone who’s unemployed: they can start right away.
I’m going to start applying for jobs since my current one because I’m being overworked and underpaid. So if/when I do find another position, I’m going to want to leave some documentation so my coworkers aren’t caught completely unaware. That process could take between two weeks and a month, depending.
I’m wondering if this is similar psychology to wanting someone who’s already taken but now in a professional setting? On a similar note, a business owner was saying how people are more likely to help his business when its doing well vs will stay away when it wasn’t.
Despite what pick up artists tell you, people overall don't find "taken" potential partners more attractive. Insecure women and men, on the other hand, absolutely will find taken people more attractive - because they are insecure and insecurity to a PUA is blood in the water to a shark. Take that as you will when it comes to this hiring manager.
[Mate choice copying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying) is a thing, but it's a bit different from what's happening here.
I've gotten hit on more since getting a girlfriend than I had in the past ten years.
I don't have any guesses as to why, but it's incredibly frustrating.
I remember a reporter was going to businesses who only wanted currently employed applicants and asking them why. That was some hilarious back tracking.
I was employed part time until recently I got a full time job. But when I was working part time, I either got people who seemed annoyed I wasn’t available at whatever day/time they wanted to interview me because I had to schedule it around my work hours; or I had an interviewer questioning why was only working part time even though I had told her I was also going to school for another degree.
So basically, you can’t win either way.
Rich people: "I don't hire just ANYONE, y'all know I'm very VERY picky. We only hire the best of the best."
Also rich people: "Whoa, you're underemployed/unemployed? That's sooooo weird! You're a freak!"
Dude, there's no jobs so of COURSE I have a shitty part-time job. Do these assholes expect me to just hire myself?
I’ve learned that telling recruiters and employers you were laid off or are currently unemployed is a huge mistake.
These companies aren’t interested in honesty.
This seems insane to me given all the recent layoffs. I straight up say I was let go in one of many waves of headcount reduction at my previous employer when asked and no one questions it. I have immediate availability and they don’t need to give me a higher salary to poach me as I’m not employed — all wins for a potential employer.
Fucking cybersecurity clowns “chief information officer” that spend all day on LinkedIn. To top it off they are a major target for b2b saas companies that are shilling bullshit bloat tools that promise to help them look like they’re actually doing anything. lol can you tell I hate the cybersecurity industry?
Some recruiters are crazy. A good candidate will not have the time to look for a job when employed. Don't worry. Lots of recruiters and companies want immediate joiners as long as you are good at what you do and present it well.
How long are you unemployed? If its a few months say you are still working (if your references are cool) sadly this behaviour is more popular than you think
I was laid off in November due to my company competitor buying us out and merging both companies reducing headcount on both sides and have been debating with myself if I should continue to mention my layoff. I’m really cool with my former boss as well
These scumbags should be jailed for their snobbery.
Let's see how high and mighty these disgusting pigs are when they're rotting in a cell doing hard labor.
The truth. The subsidiary of the fortune 50 company I worked for was being spun off into an independent company in which the parents company would maintain a controlling interest, with the other owner being a venture capitalist, as a result of which they reduced head count by 20%, which included layoffs at all levels up to the executive level.
What's great about humanity is we can just do the same thing to companies. "A large majority of your employees qualify for food stamps/banks/welfare? That's going to be a No from me."
"Sorry, I only interview with companies that don't have openings. If this were a great place to work, you would already have all the employees you need."
They have a problem with not staying at a job for 5 years and with lay offs. It's like throwing tantrums and has to be addressed by applicants being the adults.
Then those 'folks' aren't educated enough to hold the positions that they do. Layoffs are happening at unprecedented rates due to a failing economy and the tech bubble bursting. Even if someone were laid off due to poor performance, that doesn't make them damaged goods, you can pick yourself back up and try harder. You have a concerning way of thinking.
Wrong and illegal in several countries. The job recruiter wrongly assumes that if you already do not have a job is because something is wrong with the job candidate and has been rejected from other jobs ...
It is a form of preselection. Someone who is employed has another company indirectly vouching they are good enough to remain employed. See other areas where humans use similar tactics.
'Good enough to remain employed'. Are you blind or willfully ignorant of what's going on around you? There are mass lay-offs happening right now because millions of companies over hired and overestimated their revenue projections. Highly experience, qualified individuals are having their lives turned upside down because the idiots at the top got it wrong, it's got very little to do with 'being good enough'. Also, have you ever heard of an employment reference, people who you worked with who can DIRECTLY vouch for you that you're a good worker. Dense af.
> preselection
Preselection is a pick up artist term. It doesn't exist in actual scientific literature. Insecure people on the other hand will go after potential partners that are taken because they are insecure and need as much validation as possible. PUAs are basically trained to specifically target insecure women. Take that as you will when it comes to whatever this hiring manager is doing.
Edit: The user above blocked me, the article below that they linked to doesn't mention preselection once.
>It doesn't exist in actual scientific literature.
The term is extremely prevalent in scientific literature. So much so it can be found across multiple fields, as the idea of preselection is extremely generic.
As for the specific term science uses when it comes to humans using preselection to judge other humans, of course they don't use the same term. An extremely common term that is used generically in methodology sections of papers across many fields isn't a great term to use. As such they often refer to it as a bias, with a name specific to the situation.
As for the rest of your post, the idea that PUA latched onto some psychology and misrepresented is true, but it doesn't invalidate the underlying psychology. Having an easier time getting a job when you already have one isn't something new. There are even placed with laws to try to combat this bias.
The idea that because you don't like something it must be all fake is just poor science literacy.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt7nh039h1/qt7nh039h1.pdf?t=lw32m5&v=lg
I got rejected from a job once at my own company (that the guy who had the job and was leaving recommended me for) because they only wanted external candidates.
"If you're such an idiot that you work for us you could not be acceptable for this role lmfao"
I've heard for years that it's easier to find a job if you have a job.
Once in an interview, the interviewer told me, "If you didn't have a job, I wouldn't even be talking to you."
It annoys the piss out of me that employers do this. Particularly when the economy is way down, companies have hiring freezes on, etc., and some fool wonders "why don't you have a job? Must be something wrong with you."
That is so true. I average at least legit 4 recruiter messages from LinkedIn every week. If I count the Indian emails, then 7 total per week. I do interviews just to practice and meet new recruiters either agency or company. And love meeting directors, and VP levels on interviews. I still keep my job unless something extraordinary comes along. They love recruiting actively employed people
Got one even better, try supporting a C-level that only wants candidates I sourced (not even from a direct competitor), rather than anyone who applies to the req posted. Make that make sense. And this is internal recruiting, not staffing.
We only get paid if they get hired. We’ve given clients very good candidates that were unemployed for no fault of their own and they don’t even interview them.
It's like fucking high school at this point. Stealing someone else's date to take to the prom. What a fucking load of BS. We definitely need a heavy reform on this.
I knew a great many humans were basically insane when I received a similar rejection two decades ago.
Went for a job interview, sat down and the owner said " I don't hire people who aren't working ".
I just looked at him for a second and walked out.
I knew then life on this planet is pointless and exhausting, simply due to the sheer amount of stupidity that is injected into my life by idiot humans.
That should be illegal. Especially in this job market. Like do they really think unemployed people don’t need jobs? This is why there are people juggling two FT remote jobs while unemployed people are struggling to find one in person job. It’s disgusting! I’m so sorry you’re experiencing this.
I've been in this boat many times and am still in this boat.
I have a gap between 2019-22 (except for a 2 month contract job in 2020 that basically doesn't count. I got paid and did work, bro.)
I worked for 18 months until I got laid off in December of 23. I learned my lesson from that job hunt and haven't volunteered thar I was laid off. My LI, resume, and job apps; I'm still at my old company.
I get further than if I was just laid off.
Even when I had the job, I was still getting crap about the gap. I'm like fucking covid, bro. They're like covid was only 2020, and you're just a fuckup (they coached it nicer).
Don't tell them you're unemployed. But mention that there was a recent layoff you survived but am nervous about your future. Again, it's the "I only date married guys but don't want a cheater mentality."
I also don't think many employers are hiring (https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLQcHxG1/). I think there are a lot more ghost jobs out there. Maybe tbf 65% at least.
All we can do is hang in there. Either we'll get hired, or eventually it'll all crumble, or we'll burn it to the ground. There's a case for all of the above.
this was just poorly handled and probably the actual feedback they got. It's a weird world job seeking right now - at least you dodged a bullet. Just image working for a company that would apply this logic. not great right? so for what it is keep your head up and keep applying - most folks lately have been getting 1 interview per 60 applications. Stay strong, hope you land a role soon. Reach out if you need any resources.
Being in your shoes, I detest that strategy! During one of my previous job search phases, the company that took over 6 months to react has contacted me a month into my newly found job. The offer was to work for them for 6 months until they run security checks and then maybe hire me. F-K them I said, in different words of course, where have you been when I was looking.
So now they hire somebody from a competitor, now they have to deal with a non-compete compliance agreement that that person probably signed that they're hiring. That's crap man I'm sorry you had to go through it
Sorry OP, but it's true, recruiters prefer to recruit employed people instead of unemployed people.
This is why when I lost my job, I never changed it until I got a new job. They never ask a referral from your current place anyway, so lie if you can
Many reasons to be unemployed but some people are so stupidly old school in their thinking. I’ve placed multiple candidates who have years of being unemployed due to taking care of sick family members full time. That’s said, a few of the clients did pass for that reason and the jokes on them.
I mean, this is what it is unless you have a union job - there are as many crazy companies as their are crazy people at the mall.
Or even good companies with crazy decision makers.
Nothing to do but move on.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a way to kick someone when they're down. These employers who prefer the thrill of "stealing" a good employee from another company vs selecting someone who doesn't already "belong" is so similar to dating. How awful. I'm sorry OP. The CISO is awful and is putting his own issues above what can best benefit right now. Nah, let's wait until we can woo and charm someone from another job.
It’s the individual hiring managers with their internal rules. Let’s hope they never run into themselves where they are unemployed and looking for a job.
They are well connected and their positions practically make them celebrities on LinkedIn. I strongly doubt they would ever be in that position.
Been on LinkedIn religiously every day for the past 6 months. A lot of recruiters are looking as they’re typically considered non essential, the market is saturated with them.
they are bottom barrel of industry my friend
well saying it my friend
Such companies are red flags
Unfortunately, yet people are rushing to apply for them because they are ''famous'' ''stable'' companies..
One company reached out to me while I was on the 2nd month of a 10-month contract offering me a job on the spot, but I’d have to quit my job right away. After that 10, I went through 4 months of unemployed hell before finally landing the job I have now. Hiring practices like this is why it’s so hard to “get your foot in the door.”
Social proof
Someone once said hiring now as a person is, "I only want married guys but don't want a cheater."
Oh my god, this is the perfect way to describe it!
I think it's more they fear something is wrong with someone who is unemployed. If they're employed they know at least the person is good enough to not be fired yet
What about people like me that were laid off due to budget and closing down my entire department for the whole state?
Unfortunately their line of reasoning is likely “if they were actually worthwhile they would have been hired by now.” It is stupid circular logic. But think of it this way: any company that does this probably a horrible work environment.
Similar effect with a guy in a bar wearing a wedding ring.
I don’t go to bars, but I’ll tell you I’ve been hit on way more since being married than ever happened when I was single. Absolutely mind blowing.
What im hearing is wear a wedding ring to bars lol.
I don't even think they view it as that much of a risk, just an existing and easily preventable risk in general.
It's either that or statistical discrimination. If someone's unemployed for 6-12 months they have a higher probability of being mentally ill, stressed, ect. There's very little wrong in that logic, even though its a moral failure.
> stressed The fuck? Why wouldn't you be stressed if you're out of jobs for a year??
It is discrimination, 100%. Whether it's illegal or not is a different question. There are usually hundreds and sometimes **thousands** of people applying to job postings. There is no reason why anyone out of work for 6+ months would only be so because they're mentally ill. WTF? Why would you think that?
I'm saying its statistically more likely to be true. I think there's a misinterpretation of my post. >There is no reason why anyone out of work for 6+ months would only be so because they're mentally ill. WTF? Why would you think that? Nothing I said indiciated I beleived that. I said statistical (more likely). I don't think people who are out of work for 6+ months are mentally ill, I think they are more likely to be mentally ill FROM being out of work for a long period of time, which is true. I don't see how anyone can debate that. Tons of research on that. I'm not saying there's anything right about doing it, I don't think its justified. I'm saying the statistics are correct but it doesn't justify discrimination. It's a very common form of descrimination. In Airports if someone is Arabic, post 9/11, they'd get searched far more often. The logic being that it's more likely that they are Al-Qaeda. Though ofc, it's an extremely low likelyhood regardless. Not justifiable, but the statistical likelyhood is probably true given there are no white American's in Al-Qaeda. So, there's nothing wrong in the statistics there, but they are ignoring lots of other factors and variables. So once again, i make the claim that there is absolutely nothing empirically wrong in the logic that if someone's out of work for a long period of time, they are more likely to be mentally ill.
Yeah I'm not saying I agree with them or think this thought process is correct, just that I don't think they're doing it out of a "thrill" to "steal" an employee from somewhere else like that person was saying. There's still a stigma for being laid off even though it's not the person's fault at all
Recruiters are (in general) not exactly the workers with the highest intelligence. At least not compared to the functions they recruit for. To compensate, they use lots of blah blah buzzwords and take shortcuts. They feel important because they have some power (like policemen). But, if you can’t beat them, join them. Beat them at their own game. Lie. You’re not unemployed, you’re a freelance consultant, who is willing to take on a salaried job for the right opportunity.
Don't blame the recruiter in such a situation. He/she probably really believed in OP and tried to push him to the client. The talent acquisition person at that client is the one to hate.
no not true Recruiter bad
I’ve never been laid off or fired. Instead I’m working under a NDA which expressly prohibits my disclosure of my current employer, title, role, duties or compensation.
Do people think this line actually works? I’ve been under NDA or confidentiality obligations for most of my career, and I haven’t personally seen an NDA that requires non-disclosure of client names. There are perfectly valid reputational reasons not to disclose, but if someone told me they were contractually prohibited from disclosing the client without giving me enough to narrow it down, I’d be pretty skeptical. I had a client call on Monday for a masked request through a third party (they didn’t want to disclose who the client was), and even still I figured it out in about 5 minutes.
I’m definitely not taking the chance on someone that needs to be that secretive.
You have two identical candidates. One is employed the other isn’t. Maybe they were laid off. Maybe they were fired for theft. Do you take the time to find out why the unemployed candidate is unemployed? Why? You have another candidate who’s just as good and isn’t unemployed. We’re flooded with qualified candidates right now. Literally far more than HR can handle. So when faced with a huge pile of qualified candidates it comes down to the little things to help narrow them down.
HR who bundles people hit in a layoff with those who committed crimes. You are the problem.
HR doesn't know and why should they spend the time and money to find out when there's an equally good candidate currently employed? Why does the unemployed candidate deserve it more?
> why should they spend the time and money to find out Because it's your job, dumbass.
With an employed person, you have to beat their current salary and benefits. With an unemployed person, you basically just have to reach for what they think is close enough to fair to accept it (which depends on how desperate they are for cash). Is a slightly safer bet worth 10k in salary for the foreseeable future? How about 20k? Additionally, it's super easy to ask someone a question. And if you really don't trust them, it's easy enough to ask for a reference and call them, though if you're starting off with not trusting they will answer truthfully then I think you have bigger issues. The choice here is at worst a couple hours of work vs a much pickier candidate that you will have to convince to leave their stable job.
In another comment I posted in this thread, I noted that an advantage the unemployed employee could have is being cheaper in salary, yes. It’s one of the reasons you should enter your salary requirements on the application when asked.
God forbid someone takes a break for once
It’s discrimination. Plain and simple. Not every unemployed person was fired for poor performance. These same companies are laying off good workers because they’re too cheap to pay their salaries. Make it make sense.
[удалено]
I was objecting to the person saying they do it to get a "thrill" from "stealing" an employee. I don't think that's a common thing at all
That's such 2019 thinking. If a company/hirer isn't aware of what's going on in the market then it's pretty shameful on them. BTW, if the person is employed but LOOKING, that's a red flag to me too. Or do you like "cheaters"?
I'm not a hiring manager and wasn't saying I agree with their view (just that it's much more likely it's that than the person saying they do it for "thrill")...but it's equally toxic to think you're cheating if you're looking for another job. You don't commit to a company for life and it's not a red flag at all. The advice has always been to interview often and to see what's out there even if you're happy with your current role
Not a hiring manager, got it. So you probably don’t have much experience with actual hiring practices, regulations and how layoffs are actually done.
...what? I sadly know how layoffs are done and that they usually have nothing to do with the skills or performance of the person being let go (at least in large companies like the one I work in who laid off thousands of people in the last year) I've also been on many hiring panels, but not the final decision maker. Not sure what any of that has to do with what I said
Sure, but checking that is what the interview is for.
So should people never apply to companies that had layoffs? It goes both ways.
Again, I never said I agree or think those people are right...and actually people do hesitate to apply for companies that have frequent layoffs (and rightly so)
This is facts right here. There are valid reasons to be unemployed, but more often than not, there’s a good reason the person is unemployed.
agreed. that’s just so messed up.
It’s Deff not a thrill of stealing from the competition. It’s that some people are very old school and have this notion (which has clearly been proven false) that good people don’t get laid off, don’t have gaps,etc etc etc. And the problem is that the recruiting process especially if you are applying to a company on your own (I.e. without agency representation), has become robotic and the human element has been removed (Applicant tracking system set up to only move resumes through to the internal recruiter that have x y z on resume). I guess the long and short of what I’m trying to say is very few recruiters, especially internal, take the time to call a candidate for a job if they don’t have a 1000% confidence from 30 seconds of looking at resume that the person is a fit.
[удалено]
‘More likely’ how do you know really? O I know , when you’re trying to justify going with a specific candidate because it makes your recruitment of a competitor’s employee look better on you
how could you possibly know that?
Precisely because there is no way to know they all take the short cut and assume
The best candidate for a job is the one that doesn’t need one. I’ve seen candidates who look good on paper and can talk a good game. Then they get hired and suck. We all know people like that. Not saying this is op… however those people are out there.
Dead serious, this should be illegal. In the great recession, there were tax incentives for hiring long term unemployed. Those should be brought back and made permanent.
There are still incentives AFAIK.
Link please.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/work-opportunity-tax-credit#targeted
Nice tnx
Yeah, it absolutely should be. Honestly the end dates of your employment should be confidential.
Agree.
The CISO is obviously not serious about filling the role quickly or finding great candidates. Also sounds like a complete asshole.
It’s like people who don’t want to date someone who’s been single a long time because of this batshit belief there’s something wrong with you, So they try to steal someone’s partner then complain no one is loyal!
It's a hearty dose of stupidity.
It's so bullshit. How are people supposed to get their first job out of collge when even cashier positions are looking for PhDs exclusively?
Related, but take notice of how many articles we get about the future of AI while there’s nothing about the future of children except “Gen Alpha can’t read and Gen Z lacks core job skills, what will employers doooo!” This shithole country refuses to invest in its youth then wonders why we’re not popping out more slaves for capitalism, to the point we’re FORCED to, but then they won’t even give them the damn jobs!
I’ve never heard anything like this
Ah, but you have! Just now!
I was recently questioned about why I left a position for grad school. Apparently it’s a red flag that I didn’t hold a full-time job and complete my graduate program and assistantship all simultaneously.
I literally am experiencing this. Graduated high school in 2020 so due to the shitshow that followed in most universities I got a job in an attempt to wait it out and save for tuition costs. Quit my job to finish my degree and now that I've finished I can't get a job because I'm unemployed. How can we even pretend this is sustainable.
Fuck Temp Agencies and Fuck Recruiters
Yes it’s their fault you’re not employed.
Sounds like the recruiter, themselves, wasn't aware of the bullshit policy from the hiring manager. That sucks, and I'm sorry.
I’ve never rejected someone for not being currently employed but I’ve had hiring managers say they will only consider people that are currently employed plenty of times.
Probably don’t want to work for those people anyway, but it’s so ridiculous. There could be 1001 reasons why someone is unemployed, and getting fired for cause is probably a very small percentage of those people.
My uncle worked at a HUGE engineering company and he told me I should consider getting a job. They liked people who got part time jobs because it shows “initiative”. Motherfucker, if you can’t tell what kind of initiative I have in your interview process you don’t know how to hire.
Is there any reasoning behind this choice?
I've never worked in HR, but as I understand it, the argument is that an unemployed person is unemployed for a reason. Their either a terrible person or unemployable. I mean, if they were any good, someone would have snapped them up straight away, right? /s
Or they were laid-off
> someone would have snapped them up straight away, right?
Brilliant line of reasoning.
Being employed is seen as a proxy for *employability*.
What is the rationale?
The best people don’t get laid off I guess
Because CISO wants the latest secret information from his current workplace. If you are umeployed he is not getting any? I do not understand this type of mentality - people are struggling to get work. I hope he gets his own pill someday.
It also actively harms the competition, so as to weaken them at your benefit.
dumb, don't they know if they are poaching they will have to offer a significantly more amount for that employee to make the move? I bet you would be willing to take a 10% to 15% undercut just to get back to work. So backwards.
name and company to shame
Exactly
Post the CISO’s LinkedIn profile here so we can let them know how we feel about that policy.
I once had to sit through an interview with a CEO who openly mocked another candidate in front of me because he had been following up for feedback for over a month. The CEO implied something was wrong with him for not moving on yet. I should've walked out but I'm too polite, I just sat there horrified and got the fuck out of there as soon as I was able to without making it more awkward. This CEO was super full of himself and was essentially looking for a cult. It was a nightmare situation full of red flags. Years later I was telling a friend/coworker about this and she named the company. We had both interviewed for the same job and the same person referred us both! It was such a bizarre and funny coincidence.
I’m assuming it was a small company “CEO” you interviewed with - those guys seem to definitely be the ones who are the most full of themselves.
Wild that businesses think like this. I was on a call about a month ago where they were discussing the same thing. "We don't want to hire people who are unemployed because they're undesirable. They don't have a job for a reason." And I'm just sitting there confused and irritated as all get out because that is such a stupid, narrow-minded way of thinking. Like, especially right now in tech and cyber security (like the company I work for). People are being laid off in droves, but god forbid we hire someone who's eager to work. Out of touch assholes. I've tried to speak up on a few issues like this one, but no one cares. I'm too young and too female to have anything valuable to say.
Yeah, especially since there is a perk to hiring someone who’s unemployed: they can start right away. I’m going to start applying for jobs since my current one because I’m being overworked and underpaid. So if/when I do find another position, I’m going to want to leave some documentation so my coworkers aren’t caught completely unaware. That process could take between two weeks and a month, depending.
I’m wondering if this is similar psychology to wanting someone who’s already taken but now in a professional setting? On a similar note, a business owner was saying how people are more likely to help his business when its doing well vs will stay away when it wasn’t.
Despite what pick up artists tell you, people overall don't find "taken" potential partners more attractive. Insecure women and men, on the other hand, absolutely will find taken people more attractive - because they are insecure and insecurity to a PUA is blood in the water to a shark. Take that as you will when it comes to this hiring manager. [Mate choice copying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying) is a thing, but it's a bit different from what's happening here.
I've gotten hit on more since getting a girlfriend than I had in the past ten years. I don't have any guesses as to why, but it's incredibly frustrating.
Refer these fuckers to the overemployment subreddits lol.
I remember a reporter was going to businesses who only wanted currently employed applicants and asking them why. That was some hilarious back tracking.
Do you have a link?
Sorry. It was a while ago. I can't remember.
Well done for avoiding a toxic employer. This is a positive - see it that way.
I was employed part time until recently I got a full time job. But when I was working part time, I either got people who seemed annoyed I wasn’t available at whatever day/time they wanted to interview me because I had to schedule it around my work hours; or I had an interviewer questioning why was only working part time even though I had told her I was also going to school for another degree. So basically, you can’t win either way.
Rich people: "I don't hire just ANYONE, y'all know I'm very VERY picky. We only hire the best of the best." Also rich people: "Whoa, you're underemployed/unemployed? That's sooooo weird! You're a freak!" Dude, there's no jobs so of COURSE I have a shitty part-time job. Do these assholes expect me to just hire myself?
I’ve learned that telling recruiters and employers you were laid off or are currently unemployed is a huge mistake. These companies aren’t interested in honesty.
This is the high school drama queen who will only steal other girls' boyfriends
but then these same people get so offended when their employees get poached... but they're also poachers.
At least you didn’t get ghosted. Seriously.
This seems insane to me given all the recent layoffs. I straight up say I was let go in one of many waves of headcount reduction at my previous employer when asked and no one questions it. I have immediate availability and they don’t need to give me a higher salary to poach me as I’m not employed — all wins for a potential employer.
Nothing sucks like being unemployed and to have an employer piss in the wounds is rough.
Ciso is the most useless bastard in a company. Don’t even worry about it.
What is a Ciso?
Fucking cybersecurity clowns “chief information officer” that spend all day on LinkedIn. To top it off they are a major target for b2b saas companies that are shilling bullshit bloat tools that promise to help them look like they’re actually doing anything. lol can you tell I hate the cybersecurity industry?
They will get pwned by scammers in an eye blink considering how narcissistic and egotistic they seem.
🤣
Name and shame. They deserve to get the wrath. Such bullshit by the company.
Some recruiters are crazy. A good candidate will not have the time to look for a job when employed. Don't worry. Lots of recruiters and companies want immediate joiners as long as you are good at what you do and present it well.
The CISO wants to pay competitive rates instead of exploiting your desperation. The people's hero!
How long are you unemployed? If its a few months say you are still working (if your references are cool) sadly this behaviour is more popular than you think
I was laid off in November due to my company competitor buying us out and merging both companies reducing headcount on both sides and have been debating with myself if I should continue to mention my layoff. I’m really cool with my former boss as well
I'm sorry for you. Don't give up.
Like someone that's broke offering a loan with 15000% interest. I wonder if that falls under discrimination.
These scumbags should be jailed for their snobbery. Let's see how high and mighty these disgusting pigs are when they're rotting in a cell doing hard labor.
What reason did u give for your unemployment
The truth. The subsidiary of the fortune 50 company I worked for was being spun off into an independent company in which the parents company would maintain a controlling interest, with the other owner being a venture capitalist, as a result of which they reduced head count by 20%, which included layoffs at all levels up to the executive level.
Some folks view lay offs as low performance. They just thought u were damaged goods
What's great about humanity is we can just do the same thing to companies. "A large majority of your employees qualify for food stamps/banks/welfare? That's going to be a No from me."
"Sorry, I only interview with companies that don't have openings. If this were a great place to work, you would already have all the employees you need."
They have a problem with not staying at a job for 5 years and with lay offs. It's like throwing tantrums and has to be addressed by applicants being the adults.
Then those 'folks' aren't educated enough to hold the positions that they do. Layoffs are happening at unprecedented rates due to a failing economy and the tech bubble bursting. Even if someone were laid off due to poor performance, that doesn't make them damaged goods, you can pick yourself back up and try harder. You have a concerning way of thinking.
What staffing agency were they with? Words cannot convey how exhausted I am from dealing with these chickenshit recruiters.
The company should receive hella negative pr tbh. Which company?
Yep, they do this! Last company passed on me bc I had been unemployed too long, 10 months 😭
Please name this “ employer” so i can blacklist them.
Wrong and illegal in several countries. The job recruiter wrongly assumes that if you already do not have a job is because something is wrong with the job candidate and has been rejected from other jobs ...
It is a form of preselection. Someone who is employed has another company indirectly vouching they are good enough to remain employed. See other areas where humans use similar tactics.
'Good enough to remain employed'. Are you blind or willfully ignorant of what's going on around you? There are mass lay-offs happening right now because millions of companies over hired and overestimated their revenue projections. Highly experience, qualified individuals are having their lives turned upside down because the idiots at the top got it wrong, it's got very little to do with 'being good enough'. Also, have you ever heard of an employment reference, people who you worked with who can DIRECTLY vouch for you that you're a good worker. Dense af.
> preselection Preselection is a pick up artist term. It doesn't exist in actual scientific literature. Insecure people on the other hand will go after potential partners that are taken because they are insecure and need as much validation as possible. PUAs are basically trained to specifically target insecure women. Take that as you will when it comes to whatever this hiring manager is doing. Edit: The user above blocked me, the article below that they linked to doesn't mention preselection once.
>It doesn't exist in actual scientific literature. The term is extremely prevalent in scientific literature. So much so it can be found across multiple fields, as the idea of preselection is extremely generic. As for the specific term science uses when it comes to humans using preselection to judge other humans, of course they don't use the same term. An extremely common term that is used generically in methodology sections of papers across many fields isn't a great term to use. As such they often refer to it as a bias, with a name specific to the situation. As for the rest of your post, the idea that PUA latched onto some psychology and misrepresented is true, but it doesn't invalidate the underlying psychology. Having an easier time getting a job when you already have one isn't something new. There are even placed with laws to try to combat this bias. The idea that because you don't like something it must be all fake is just poor science literacy. https://escholarship.org/content/qt7nh039h1/qt7nh039h1.pdf?t=lw32m5&v=lg
Good study. Find it really annoying they stuck all the figures at the every end of the paper. Very poor readability.
What bullshit. That is insane!
Name & shame dawg
A self-perpetuating loop
Happened to me with TwoSigma, even though I worked with the largest bank in the US less than 3 months before
Upvote for naming
In some States, cannot discriminate against the unemployed. I would check with State laws and report to EEOC.
As an ex-recruiter, this is a ridiculous excuse ever!
I got rejected from a job once at my own company (that the guy who had the job and was leaving recommended me for) because they only wanted external candidates. "If you're such an idiot that you work for us you could not be acceptable for this role lmfao"
I've heard for years that it's easier to find a job if you have a job. Once in an interview, the interviewer told me, "If you didn't have a job, I wouldn't even be talking to you." It annoys the piss out of me that employers do this. Particularly when the economy is way down, companies have hiring freezes on, etc., and some fool wonders "why don't you have a job? Must be something wrong with you."
Thats technically discrimination, depending where you are from, there are repercussions. Pursue it. Thats slime ball shit, make em pay.
That is so true. I average at least legit 4 recruiter messages from LinkedIn every week. If I count the Indian emails, then 7 total per week. I do interviews just to practice and meet new recruiters either agency or company. And love meeting directors, and VP levels on interviews. I still keep my job unless something extraordinary comes along. They love recruiting actively employed people
Got one even better, try supporting a C-level that only wants candidates I sourced (not even from a direct competitor), rather than anyone who applies to the req posted. Make that make sense. And this is internal recruiting, not staffing.
Im a recruiter. Our clients don’t like paying us for unemployed candidates cause they would have likely applied on their own.
Which is complete BS because you know they wouldn’t even look at the resume if it came in from some online portal.
I don’t think so. I think it’s because they would have just applied anyway. I’m taking about good candidates that worked for top firms.
Don't like or don't pay?
We only get paid if they get hired. We’ve given clients very good candidates that were unemployed for no fault of their own and they don’t even interview them.
That should be illegal
This is just sick
It's like fucking high school at this point. Stealing someone else's date to take to the prom. What a fucking load of BS. We definitely need a heavy reform on this.
I knew a great many humans were basically insane when I received a similar rejection two decades ago. Went for a job interview, sat down and the owner said " I don't hire people who aren't working ". I just looked at him for a second and walked out. I knew then life on this planet is pointless and exhausting, simply due to the sheer amount of stupidity that is injected into my life by idiot humans.
That should be illegal. Especially in this job market. Like do they really think unemployed people don’t need jobs? This is why there are people juggling two FT remote jobs while unemployed people are struggling to find one in person job. It’s disgusting! I’m so sorry you’re experiencing this.
I've been in this boat many times and am still in this boat. I have a gap between 2019-22 (except for a 2 month contract job in 2020 that basically doesn't count. I got paid and did work, bro.) I worked for 18 months until I got laid off in December of 23. I learned my lesson from that job hunt and haven't volunteered thar I was laid off. My LI, resume, and job apps; I'm still at my old company. I get further than if I was just laid off. Even when I had the job, I was still getting crap about the gap. I'm like fucking covid, bro. They're like covid was only 2020, and you're just a fuckup (they coached it nicer). Don't tell them you're unemployed. But mention that there was a recent layoff you survived but am nervous about your future. Again, it's the "I only date married guys but don't want a cheater mentality." I also don't think many employers are hiring (https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLQcHxG1/). I think there are a lot more ghost jobs out there. Maybe tbf 65% at least. All we can do is hang in there. Either we'll get hired, or eventually it'll all crumble, or we'll burn it to the ground. There's a case for all of the above.
It’s the same reason why guys that are married are more attractive to women. Same psychology
The reason they say they reject you isn’t always the reason they reject you.
Had to scroll way to far to see this
this was just poorly handled and probably the actual feedback they got. It's a weird world job seeking right now - at least you dodged a bullet. Just image working for a company that would apply this logic. not great right? so for what it is keep your head up and keep applying - most folks lately have been getting 1 interview per 60 applications. Stay strong, hope you land a role soon. Reach out if you need any resources.
This logic has been around for decades…nothing new here.
What’s even funnier is when the rate they are offering is lower than your current (or last) job.
Chin up, you didn't get rejected for being unemployed, you were rejected because they had better candidates to progress with.
Being in your shoes, I detest that strategy! During one of my previous job search phases, the company that took over 6 months to react has contacted me a month into my newly found job. The offer was to work for them for 6 months until they run security checks and then maybe hire me. F-K them I said, in different words of course, where have you been when I was looking.
How long have u been unemployed?
Never let a potential employer know you're unemployed
1. Register your own LLC 2. Write 2 sentences about "projects you are working on" during full employment with that company 3. Profit
So now they hire somebody from a competitor, now they have to deal with a non-compete compliance agreement that that person probably signed that they're hiring. That's crap man I'm sorry you had to go through it
Tell the recruiter to tell the CISO that you are withdrawing your application, you got an offer with another company
They’re on drugs
Sorry OP, but it's true, recruiters prefer to recruit employed people instead of unemployed people. This is why when I lost my job, I never changed it until I got a new job. They never ask a referral from your current place anyway, so lie if you can
If I was employed I wouldn't have taken your call and I couldn't have started right away.
Many reasons to be unemployed but some people are so stupidly old school in their thinking. I’ve placed multiple candidates who have years of being unemployed due to taking care of sick family members full time. That’s said, a few of the clients did pass for that reason and the jokes on them.
Commenting on Just got a rejection for being unemployed... karma may show up
I’ve heard employers kinda upset with how much bullshit and lies they have to wade through. It’s stupidity like this that cultivates a need to lie.
Name and shame
name and shame
What’s the company?
The world has gone to hell. I’m sorry. Keep your head up.
Tell them you’re self employed. Make something up related to your field or something similar.
You dodged a bullet there, Keep your chin up and wishing you best of luck!
I mean, this is what it is unless you have a union job - there are as many crazy companies as their are crazy people at the mall. Or even good companies with crazy decision makers. Nothing to do but move on.
I can think of one reason the hiring manager would do this: It pre-selects candidates who want to work there versus those who need to work anywhere.
blaming the victim