A friendly tip for job seekers:

[sixmile]

Leave the baggage at home.

Our company is hiring for administrative and entry-level sales positions in the aviation business.

Most potential candidates are eager to work, and are able to follow the simple instructions for the interview process. Though some are just a hot mess. Needless to say these candidates are immediately disqualified.

Just a helpful tip if you're out interviewing - strangers do not want to hear about your personal troubles during a job interview.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Entry level positions. Able to follow simple instructions.

Undoubtedly, it sounds like these are extremely low paying jobs.

I'm sure "management" appreciates high quality applicants being forced to grovel. Those applicants really need to learn their place.

[leftyohiolib]

2. yea they pay high-school wages and then bitch when

they dont get highly educated well-trained adults to apply

[KurtNYC]

19. There is a huge difference between groveling and interviewing well

You'd be surprised how poorly most people sell themselves. Many have almost no ability to see what the employer wants. They act like the job is human parking meter: this many hours for this much money.

If one can't sell themselves likely they can't sell the product either.

[Honeycombe8]

100. Not nice to make fun of people who work in entry level or low paying jobs.

People fill all kinds of jobs, including lower level and entry level. There's nothing to be ashamed of in doing any sort of honest work, even it's working at Burger King or a cashier at Albertson's.

[LadyInAZ]

3. Personal baggage

what sort of personal baggage are we talking about? I'm usually up beat, communicative and personable. I never bring my personal life to work or an interview.

[sixmile]

4. Then I'm not talking about you

'Personal baggage' is exactly what it sounds like.

[leftyohiolib]

5. personal baggage like "how am i supposed to feed my family on 7 dollars an hour"

[Ineeda]

10. Exactly the comment to get you that job, right?

So professional, and makes such a great impression during an interview, huh?

[leftyohiolib]

23. if you offer crappy compensation then expect crappy applicants

oh and im not referring specifically to the op i know nothing about the job opportunities being offered there.

[Quantess]

17. LMAO! Yeah, uh....no.

Are you kidding? Pre-emptive complaining about the job is a bad idea.
Don't even bother applying if the wage isn't enough, LOL.

Can you imagine being the HR person doing the interview... who has no control over the starting wages (well maybe a leeway of a dollar per hour) and someone asking you that? If I were the interviewer, I'd wrap it up in 30 seconds and get that person out the door. As if the HR person doesn't hear enough bitching from bosses.

[leftyohiolib]

22. the hr person that interviewed me regarding the job i have now

was entirely in control of wages. which is how i got hired at the top of the scale instead of at the bottom. the difference was more the several dollars an hour.

[Quantess]

30. never mind.

[JVS]

39. LOL!

[Honeycombe8]

101. Response: Then why did you choose to do this for a living? nt

[snooper2]

6. Pretty much reason mother-in-law can't get a job...Walking through rehab center last weekend

where FIL is currently, she told some poor orderly every fucking insignificant detail of her life,

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Finally I'm like, Susan, he's just walking us to his room. I don't think he cares about when you hurt your back in 1992 :eyes:

[SmileyRose]

43. OMG we have the same mother in law.

Mine is a Susan too!

LOL

[Bluenorthwest]

7. What a crappy attitude. Who'd want to work with such a company

anyway? Paying 'entry level' pittances and expecting joyous groveling from the prospective exploitees. I mean employees. Tripe of the right wing variety.

[sixmile]

8. The company is owned and run by liberal Dems

So now what?

We're hiring the unemployed. Is that a bad thing on DU?

Are your views representative of the party? If so, I'm gone.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. My views are representative of me

A good job interview is always a two way street. The company is also under consideration. If you are seeking to hire any form of quality, even starter level, that will be the case. Even if it is not, and the applicants have no other options, that is one hell of a way to represent your company to them.
I mean, if you are in a position of authority, you should be able to hear an opinion without playing some silly 'is hiring bad' routine. We are discussing the interview process, and sorry to tell you how it is done is important as well.
What in my post in any way, shape or form would suggest that I am representing anyone but myself? Nothing. Why should anything about you hinge on my opinion? If that is the sort of verbal fun you have with applicants, no wonder you are not having the success you wish for in the process.

[Chan790]

106. A good interview is a two-way street.

Exactly. I withdrew myself from consideration on a position I'd been applying to on Friday because the job turned out to be something I'd neither enjoy or be very good at. The HR person was shocked...apparently he's not used to people saying "No thanks. I think we'd be a poor fit." to his requests for a follow-up interview. His response was priceless: "Well. The job pays what it pays so don't think this'll boost your offer." (The job paid $65K the first year with expected substantial yearly raises through year-5 to an average compensation of $300K+. The pay was not the issue, the first year alone represented a 50% raise over my previous position.)

Having been a hiring manager too, I wish more people had applicant-integrity...it's not like I've ever not known walking out of an initial interview whether I was capable of the job being discussed, rarely have I not known if I really wanted to work there. Taking a position you're a poor fit for harms both you and the employer. It harms you a lot more than the employer.

[raccoon]

185. "A good interview is a two-way street." Unless you're desperate, and have to take the job from hell

when it's offered to you.

BTDT. Not a pleasant place to be.

[TBF]

16. The bad thing is

that you are treating people like crap in your responses on this thread. If you are like that in real life I can imagine just how much fun it is to work with/for you...

I could care less how you categorize the owners of your company - it is owners and their entitlement that we are damned sick of.

[kelly1mm]

35. I got trashed for paying $13 per hour for my 2 employees. I was told

that I should close my business if I could not afford to pay them at least $17 per hour + benefits.

I talked to my employees about it and while they said they would love to make more, they would rather keep eating than lose their jobs so they would not be 'exploited' by me any longer.

Sometimes DU is a funny place.

[Claudia Jones]

77. that is very disturbing

So, your employees would rather keep eating than lose their jobs?

[kelly1mm]

80. Both of my employees have full time jobs and SOs that stay home

with the kids. If they were not working for me 15-20 hours per week they would not be able to pay the bills on their salary alone (hense my comment about liking to eat) and they would probably not be able to get a similar part time job with the flexable hours I can offer (basically anytime they want to work - one employee works from 4-8 am, 4 days per week usually before he goes to his regular job). Another option is that their SOs could get a job but then you have the cost of child care and other work costs.

Anyway, some here said that by not paying them more I was exploiting them and that I should shut the business down if I could not afford to pay them more. I just think WTF? when I hear that.

[Claudia Jones]

81. job insecurity

Millions of people are suffering from being unemployed and millions more from job insecurity. It is a "buyer's market" for employers. (Think about that - a "buyer's market" for human beings.) That is why people are forced into that choice - "they would rather keep eating than lose their job." Clearly that is opening the door to all sorts of abuses by employers. You are personally benefiting from this, and are crowing about it. It takes $20 an hour to afford people any sort of decent life. With the money that went to Wall Street in the bail outs, we could have paid every unemployed or under-employed person in the country $50,000 a year. That would have revived the economy, raised wages everywhere, stabilized the housing situation, brought medical care into reach, and lifted millions of people - including many children - out of bone-crushing poverty. Perhaps you do not think that those millions of people "deserve" a decent life, that only clever entrepreneurial people such as yourself deserve a decent life.

Now, of course you may not be able to pay more than $13 an hour and stay in business. But that is not the fault of your employees. The system is inherently exploitative.

[kelly1mm]

83. Ummm, you do know that $13 per hour is $5.75 over the minimum wage right?

Also, the increase in profits from when I did everything myself to now where I and my employees do it was $37,653 last year. Of that, $32,946 went to labor costs (wages, UI/WC insurance, payroll taxes), about 90%. My 'exploitation' netted me less than $5000 to my business.

My business will not go under if I don't have employees. I did it myself for 3 years without employees. I would lose the whopping $5000 I 'exploited' from them last year. They would lose the almost $33,000 in total compensation they got. Maybe you are right. I guess I should just fire them in order to keep from 'exploiting' them.

If you do the numbers, if I paid them 100% of the revenue they generate they would make about $15.25 per hour. Would that be enough? I could not be accused of exploitation then as I am getting nothing out of the deal, right? One last thing, why would I bother with having employees if it was not benefiting me? How much as a percentage basis of the revenue generated by an employee should the business owner be entitled to in your opinion? Note mine is about 11%.

[JI7]

85. you know, the one you replied to is often why we can't get things passed

people like to mix in the small business owners who struggle with the wealthy corporation.

it's the same thing the conservatives do. they try to claim taxes and other laws which are aimed at large corporations are going to hurt the small business owner when that is not the case.

the poster you replied to sure doesn't help by calling them slave owners and similar shit.

[sixmile]

86. +1

The referenced posts have my WTF meter going full tilt!

WTF?!!!

[Claudia Jones]

90. that may be true

Depending upon just what it is that "you" want to "get passed."

[Occulus]

173. While lumping in small businesses with multinationals isn't at all the right thing to do,

I think we all can admit that the minimum wage should be several dollars higher than it is.

$13 sounds about right. Worker productivity has only gone up over the last fifteen years, but wages have remained for the most part flat during that time and the Federal minimum wage hasn't risen to compensate for costs of living.

Something needs to be done, and keeping wages low isn't the answer.

[Claudia Jones]

87. I know this

I know that it is far below what people need, and is not an accurate reflection of what they produce.

Again, I said that the system was exploitative, I didn't say that you personally were. You are not being accused of anything. You suffer from it as well. The only issue I have with you is the ideas you are expressing. I disagree with you on that,

Why should you "bother" with "having" employees if there were nothing in it for you? I will let you ponder that on your own for a while. The question almost answers itself, in any world other than bizarro Ayn Rand world.

[kelly1mm]

95. I can see we are not going to agree on this. From what I gather, any job

that cannot pay $20 per hour (plus benefits?) should not be done. I think you should work on changing the minimum wage laws. In fact, I believe that all the cities with 'living wage' laws are below that so maybe that would be an easier place to start. Although a $20 minimum wage would mean that my employees would be let go. Shoot, I don't make $20 per hour once you count in that I have to pay both sides of the SS tax. I guess I should let myself go as well????

I told you exactly to the dollar what they produced. 100% of there production would net them $15.25 per hour. Not $20+.

About the bother of employees - there is a crap load of paperwork that needs to be done when you have employees. That is the 'bother' I was referring to. I am not quite sure what your problem with the word "having" was..... I think it makes sense in the context of the sentence. What would be my enlightened self interest to employ others if I did not reap any rewards from that situation? It is a serious question. I really don't know what you mean. Could you please enlighten me?

At least there seems to be a few others here that understand what I am trying to say.

[Claudia Jones]

138. you miss my point entirely

If running a business is such a hardship, don't do it. Of course it can be miserable. Small business owners suffer from the system, too. So stop defending the system.

[Chan790]

111. Actually...

With the money that went to Wall Street in the bail outs, we could have paid every unemployed or under-employed person in the country $50,000 a year. That would have revived the economy, raised wages everywhere, stabilized the housing situation, brought medical care into reach, and lifted millions of people - including many children - out of bone-crushing poverty.

Giving every unemployed or under-employed person in the country $50,000 a year would do a cumulative total of zero of those things. It would just have sparked massive hyperinflation and immediately repriced all of those commodity goods right back out of their reach while the price of bread shot to $15/loaf. (See: Germany, Weimar Republic)

I don't love it when people on DU who don't understand economics get preachy about economic-justice. Generally giving out large sums of money for any reason is a counterproductive idea because it does nothing but cause inflation to maintain price equity...the price of things goes up to match the devaluation caused by the distribution, almost always dollar for dollar. Rarely the inflation is larger and the real-value of the currency falls, never the other way around. That money surely could have been better spent, but the way to have better spent it was on WPA-type programs, poverty-abatement and implementing universal healthcare.

[coalition_unwilling]

120. Your post is pure and utter rubbish dressed up in popular misconceptions

about the effects money transfers have on price inflation or deflation.

No less a personage than Keynes himself said it would be preferable to pay the unemployed to dig holes and fill them back in than to have the unemployed remain idle. Why? Because in standard economic theory, to maintain a given level of GDP, when consumer spending and business investment shrink, government spending MUST increase simply to maintain that level of GDP.

Here's the general (macro)economic equation:

GDP = C + B + G + (X-I)

where GDP = Gross Domestic Product
C = Consumer Spending
B = Business Investment
G = Government Spending
X = Exports
and
I = Imports

To repeat, if C and B decrease, then G must increase to maintain the same level of GDP. Nowhere in that equation (nor in the hypothetical example you responded to about transferring $50K to each of the un- and under-employed) does any increase in the money supply occur.

[Chan790]

131. Partial rebuttal.

I'm going to defer to Keynes largely because I have more faith in Keynes than I have in myself...but I have a lot more in me than I have in people who suggest $50K in direct stimulus would have solved anything. (It would have sold a lot of dumb shit...most people don't spend money wisely when they get it in a big chunk.)

You'll note though that I didn't say we shouldn't have used the money to increase G (I said we should have used it to fund WPA-programs and poverty-abatement if you go back and check...in effect paying people to dig and fill ditches and (among other things) buying up depressed real estate for holdings as use as low-income housing.), I said we shouldn't be cutting fat stimulus checks. There are reasons beyond Keynesianism why it's a bad idea to directly hand cash to people in large quantities, rather than funneling it through the economy on a slower rationed basis.

Note that John Maynard himself advocated paying people to dig and fill ditches rather than hand them sacks of cash.

[coalition_unwilling]

134. Keynes' advocacy for paying people to dig and fill ditches was

a metaphor for granting them purchasing power through increasing G. In other words, the same effect in boosting G would come from paying people to dig ditches and fill them in . . . or from transferring purchasing power to them directly via enhanced unemployment security programs.

What tends to cause hyperinflation historically is massive and rapid increases in the money supply, typically caused by a ramp-up in bank lending (the source of money). If anything, banks have since 2007 curtailed lending, based on anecdotal evidence out there I keep encountering. I would thus say we face a far more severe threat of crippling deflation than of hyperinflation.

But, then, I am an unreconstructed Keynesian. :)

[Chan790]

135. Yes, but didn't we borrow the bailout bucks from the Chinese? n/t

[KamaAina]

203. I do believe I remember that thread!

You have a restaurant in Portland, right?

Not exactly one of our shining hours. :eyes:

[2banon]

42. I agree with the OP. I'm also interested in the admin position. Where do I send my resume?

a link to the company site would be appreciated!

Best regards,


edited for typo! sheesh! Talk about leaving a bad impression!

[FarLeftFist]

49. People are picky. Your advice is good for those seeking jobs.

P.S. Not only does your employer want to hear about your personal baggage, but neither do your co-workers. I'm sure they have their own and are just waiting to punch-out the clock to go home and be with their kids.

[WillowTree]

53. Some people are just plain addicted to outrage and negativity. They don't know any other way to be.

You're speaking truth and good sense. Don't let the naysayers get you down.

[datasuspect]

55. how do you define "liberal dem?"

i'm all ears . . .

[Donnachaidh]

57. BFD. It's STILL a crappy attitude

Are the applicants required to kiss your ass for offering them jobs, when the first thing out of your mouth is *I don't want to hear about your problems.*

Yeah -- that's an *ideal* employer :puke:

[tblue37]

88. I am not an employer but a "wage slave," and I ALSO don't want every person

I have an encounter with to unload all their personal baggage on me. That doesn't mean I expect anyone to "kiss my ass," but that I have my own life, my own problems, and my own people whose lives I AM interested in hearing all about.

We all have our own problems, and the world doesn't revolve around any one of us, so it is absurd to expect strangers to want to hear your life story, regardless of the situation.

A young friend of mine was recently promoted to a managerial position with a very humane, family-owned national company. While she was interviewing for an office assistant, she was shocked at how few people thought it was important to show up on time, dress neatly, or behave professionally during the interview.

It is ridiculous to be infuriated by the very idea that someone applying for a job should behave as though he or she is applying for a job rather than visiting a therapist!

[Nye Bevan]

102. "Leave the baggage at home" != "expecting joyous groveling" (nt)

[TwilightGardener]

9. Not bad advice. Keep it strictly professional, is all you're saying.

[Enrique]

11. be grateful you are in the hiring position

and not the job candidate position.

[Desertrose]

13. Seriously, this should just be common sense.

The fact that it needs to even be mentioned.......:shrug:

[Broderick]

27. I have given tons of interviews and remarkably

many need this advice. The funniest one was how one prospective candidate started telling me about how he walked out after threatening to pour gasoline and light a match on his supervisor because he was being written for being late and he had only been late on average once a week which he thought was bullshit that he would get written up for that. Then he went on to tell me how the bigger boss showed up for work and he spun gravel and rocks with his hotrod all over him on the way out. Yep, you can bet I hired him right there and cancelled the rest of the interviews. There are plenty more stories from great detail into previous convictions for child molestation, to how one wanted to kill his bitch wife, etc etc etc. Some don't have a clue, and I wonder how they ever find a job.

[JoePhilly]

69. Here's one ... "I'm considering your job so I can get trained for something better!!"

[hunter]

123. Geez, that's the unpoken given for many jobs.

I used to work construction. The first contractor I worked for paid me $8 an hour and he knew I'd be gone as soon as I got a better offer, once I had the experience.

He never paid anyone more than $8 an hour, and nobody ever worked for him more than a year or two. He also knew exactly what he was doing. Whatever accounting he used worked for him and he enjoyed teaching kids his trade.

Sure, an applicant flat out saying he's eager to move on isn't too bright, but it's also disgusting when a potential employer asks doofus questions trying to flesh out how long you might be willing to settle for a stagnant job without a raise.

"Geepers yes, sir! I'd love to stamp widgets for minimum wage for the next fifty years!"

[MedicalAdmin]

187. The only thing more expense than training an employee who leaves...

... is not training the one who stays.

[coalition_unwilling]

121. And then there are the wonderfully poignant and piquant questions

companies sometimes ask.

My personal fav (as related to my by a colleague in Madison, WI) was when the company asked the prospective candidate what birth control she used.

Her response:

"What birth control would the company like me to use?"

Priceless :)

[Broderick]

180. That's funny

I hope the question wasn't true, but if it was; what a great comeback.

[CrispyQ]

14. Several years ago our Sunday paper had a feature about some of the antics

job interviewees did. It was unbelievable some of the things recruiters reported.

People taking cell calls during the interview was a big one. One guy couldn't stop yawning & confessed that he had been out late partying. One woman brought in a bucket of fried chicken. She said she had another interview right after & didn't have time for lunch & proceeded to eat during her interview. To her credit, she did offer chicken to the interviewer. And there were more. I don't remember them all but my husband & I had a great laugh that morning.

This is just lack of common sense. I wouldn't hire them either.

[Broderick]

28. I don't doubt any of that one bit.

I have had a guy sitting there mid question tell me to hold on a minute to take a cellphone call. Then they proceed to talk to the wife or friend for a few minutes and tell them how they are getting a job at such and so forth and they will hook up for drinks afterwards, etc etc.

[onethatcares]

15. would this be at like "call centers"?

I'm serious, entry level sales positions aren't really "sales" positions most times.

[badtoworse]

18. That is good advice for interviewing at ANY level.

A few of the responses I've seen here are amazing. You know who you are - if you're having trouble finding a job, you might take the OP more seriously.

[sixmile]

20. Thanks. I thought it was just me.

Imagine hiring people who despise your very existence.

I view employing people as a virtue, not a sin.

[KurtNYC]

21. apparently for some if they can't complain about life during the interview

then they are "groveling" (at the feet of the fascist corporate overlords, etc. ...)

Some other tips:
- don't ask a lot of questions about the drug screening
- don't be late to the interview
- if you aren't coming at all, call and say so
- fill out the whole application
- don't check your watch or your phone during the interview
- don't bad mouth former employers (no matter how bad they were)

[Mopar151]

26. Leave off the eye-watering cologne

but please do bathe.....

[Broderick]

29. turn the phone

OFF

[rbnyc]

31. +1 (nt)

[Morning Dew]

24. What should you wear?

not these:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/page/5

[patrice]

25. This is reasonable. If something else is more important than the job you're interviewing for,

perhaps you should consider NOT interviewing for that job. Look for a different situation.

[Claudia Jones]

76. there is something much more important

There is something much more important than "the job you're interviewing for" and that is improving the "situation" for all workers. Yes, we are looking for a "different situation" - for all wokrers. Others on this thread say that we should accept things as they are and do the best that we can for ourselves.

[Lionessa]

32. entry level sales... that says it all since most entry level sales these days

are nothing more than scams trying to get free labor trying to sell un-sellable shit on commission only.

[GoCubsGo]

33. My only "baggage" is the fact that I have no job.

I don't even trouble my friends with my personal problems. Why the hell would I bring them up with a potential employer?

[Leftist Agitator]

34. The responses to this thread are phenomenal...

It's no surprise that some of the people who have replied to this thread have difficulty finding a job.

[Lisa0825]

36. There is a lot of animosity toward HR folks here.

I used to go to the Career Help group here, but got tired of the negativity when I was only trying to help. Apparently I am evil, and never knew it until DU told me so.

[sixmile]

37. It's not just HR folks

It's seems to be animosity towards business in general.

Like it or not we live in a capitalist world. I'm sure the computers everyone's hiding behind weren't free.

-OP

[Lisa0825]

38. I hire for a state university hospital. And before that I was with the employment office.

But that doesn't keep people from thinking my only goal is to keep them away from jobs, even though I spend half my time assisting job seekers and giving them advice on resumes, interviewing, etc.

It's just really difficult to accept that my good intentions here were shot down and HR was broad-brushed as the enemy, even though statistically speaking HR has a high percentage of liberals.

[HughBeaumont]

46. And in turn, like it or not,

If capitalism ever expects to survive, it kind of needs gainfully employed people. THAT'S the reality of a consumer-based service economy that no one on the hiRING side of the desk seems to understand or care about.

[datasuspect]

56. HR is a parasitic function

[Broderick]

59. Don't take it personally Lisa

There are many people simply unemployable in my estimation. I remember being in another state where unemployment was so low. Like 2.5%. Dangerously low from an employer standpoint because about 4-5% of the population can't function in a work environment no matter what. It was called recycling dregs at that time because you were getting just a few apps and resumes for job listings, and the quality of them was a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. Simply unemployable. Too much personal baggage, too many destructive habits, and simply keeping a job for them for more than a month or more was not in their history or future.

[Chan790]

113. I wouldn't say you're evil...

but the vast majority of HR people I've encountered professionally...were obstacles rather than facilitators. Not just to job-seekers but often to the well-managed operation of the employer.

There is a truism taught by job coaches that one must "subvert, defeat or end-run HR to get into interviews for positions that match your skills." Certainly whether you think HR is useless or not...that POV presents the impression that there might be a problem with the nature of HR as it is commonly situated and comprised. Certainly in many cases the better interest of the employer would lie in making supervisors do their own hiring and applicant screening directly. You don't want to know how many times I've walked into an initial interview to meet with an HR person who doesn't actually grasp what the position they're hiring for does at-all (and thus is unqualified or unprepared to be involved in the process.)...or the number of times I've met with a interviewer who was the to-be supervisor only to discover that me (and the other 4 people HR screened-in to them) all in no way (and often in the exact same non-way) met the needs of the supervisor or the qualifications of the position as the supervisor understood them and thought they'd outlined them to HR. Certainly in both cases, some significant degree of responsibility lies with the supervisor for failing to express their needs to HR appropriately.

From the other perspective, that of HR, how does one address such issues? I figure it can't be much fun for you either.

[undeterred]

41. The OP has an attitude.

All job seekers do such and such. Really gets tiresome.

[Horse with no Name]

45. Exactly. And what exactly does he consider "baggage"?

Perhaps whoever does the interviewing asks questions that lead one of the members of the unwashed masses to answer in such a manner. I have had dumb interviews before where they have asked me about my personal life. I always felt they were trying to lead me somewhere I didn't want to go, so I was very careful to sidestep those landmines.

But then again, I have never been in a position where my entire life depended on a job interview. I can't imagine being in that position and fearing that if I didn't answer the questions they asked or gave them the answers they were looking for that it might mean the difference of living or dying. It might even make me nervous enough to attempt to elicit sympathy from the interviewer by oversharing.

There are so many people that are living on the edge--people that have put hundreds of resumes out without ONE call back. Then when they FINALLY get that one call back and their entire LIFE is in the balance..it is quite possible that someone might be desperate enough to almost beg.

And it is quite possible that the lucky person might even think that IF they think he is hungry enough that he might make a better employee. That USED to be something that they looked for in a potential employee.

[GoCubsGo]

92. Most applicants probably ARE desperate these days

For how many years now have nearly 30 million of us had to compete for a couple hundred thousand new openings per month? Count me among the desperate. I don't point it out, but it IS pretty obvious.

[Broderick]

60. Helpful advice is Attitude? No wonder companies are requiring you HAVE a job already before they

hire folks. Showing that you can hold a job and not cop an attitude about those helping or those hiring is indicative of someone with a job. People, many times to often create their own misery. Not a majority, but certainly some portion of them.

[undeterred]

66. Totally patronizing attitude. So do you.

And btw its illegal to screen out unemployed people. Stop acting like a Republican. You're on the wrong side of the great empathy divide.

[Broderick]

181. I don't know if it is legal or not, BUT

just check the want ads and on Monster and find the number of companies requiring that you be employed already to apply. It's happening.

[badtoworse]

67. A bunch of those people are posting on this thread - nt

[Broderick]

184. LOL

just a few.

[neverforget]

99. So what portion of the 14 million unemployed have an attitude?

[Broderick]

182. I can't answer that, but I will say some

What percentage, I don't know. Perhaps a small percentage, but there are some that is for sure.

[Occulus]

174. Are you seriously praising a practice that's being made illegal across the country?

And it should be illegal. It's like a prospective landlord requiring you to have a current residence to sign a lease.

[Broderick]

183. I am not praising it one bit, but I understand why they are doing it

They are trying to get the best applicants and it's an employer market right now. When the worm turns, and it is an employee market again (hopefully in my lifetime) then you see other things happening like sign on bonuses, higher wages, etc. I am merely pointing out the facts as I see them.

[Occulus]

188. And you're going to do fuck-all to make that happen, aren't you?

[undeterred]

40. Really looking down on the world aren't you?

[Claudia Jones]

44. a friendly tip for employers

Don't be such greedy self-centered assholes.

This opening post, and some of the simply disgusting posts people have written in response, represent yet another variant of the "blame the worker" game.

Clearly, the best way to get good employees is to treat them as though they were human beings. This can be most clearly seen with small farms, where two adjacent employers are pulling from the same pool of applicants for the same work. One will claim that 90% of the applicants are worthless, and that he cannot get a good crew. The farmer down the road will report having 90% good applicants and will praise his crew. Obviously the difference is in the attitude of the boss, not in the shortcomings of the workers.

So many of these posts are condescending and derogatory, just laced with venom and elitism and superiority.

How can so many who claim to be Democrats side again and again with power, with authoritarianism, with management over labor, with the rich over the poor? What happened to the party over the last 40 years?

[Enrique]

50. and framed as advice

advice my ass.

[coalition_unwilling]

125. The patronism and condescension on the surface of the OP can't really

disguise what is at root a contempt for people in general.

I feel contemptuous towards the rich and parasitic (basically the entire Repuke party and a significant part of the Dems), not towards people who are trying to get a job.

[bvar22]

52. Well Said.

I recommend your post.
:fistbump:


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[badtoworse]

54. You can't possibly be serious

Employers conducting interviews are playing the "blame the worker game"? They're hiring people, not firing them.

I've interviewed prospective employees many times in my career. This is what I expect:
1. Show up on time, look presentable and dress appropriately. If I'm hiring a plant operator, I wouldn't expect him or her to show up in a suit. (They would certainly score extra points if they did, however.). If you're going to deal with clients, you'd better look sharp.

2. Be qualified for the job. If it's a senior position, I'd expect you to have the requisite experience and know the business. Even if it's an entry level job, I'd expect you to know a little about the business and be able to explain why it's attractive to you.

3. Be articulate. Interviews involve exchanging ideas and information and the better you can do this, the better your chance to get the job.

4. Be enthusiastic about the job and about yourself. If you're not enthusiastic about the job, you'll probably do a crappy job, so why should I hire you? If you're not enthusiastic about yourself, why should I be enthusiastic about you?

5. Tell me you want the job. You'd be amazed how many people don't do this in an interview.

6. Follow up with a note in a few days. This will reinforce a positive image and set you apart from the other people I've seen. You'd be amazed how many people don't do this either.

The list is pretty basic and I'd be surprised if anyone with bona fide hiring credentials disagreed with me. 1 through 4 are mandatory; 5 and 6 are good practice.

I'm on my 10th job in a nearly 40 year career. I've done very well following the above myself and I'd strongly recommend job seekers do the same.

Am I exploiting people or being condescending? If so, tell me how.

[Claudia Jones]

58. I don't get it, sorry

I can't see the relevance of your response to what I wrote. This is not about you, so I am not sure why you would be so defensive and feel a need to tell us your life story and justify yourself.

[badtoworse]

62. Let me lay it out for you

The OP is good advice on interviewing for a job from someone who is apparently an HR professional - i.e. someone with an informed opinion. It was obviously intended to help people. You characterized the post, and similar ones as a "variant of the blame the worker game", "condescending", "derogatory", "laced with venom", etc. It's beyond me how such advice could be interpreted that way.

I too have hiring experience and chose to add my own advice to the OP's. I've followed those rules when I've interviewed for jobs and have enjoyed considerable success doing so. I'm passing it on because I'm trying to help people who are looking for work now. I'm curious if you view my post the same way as the OP (condescending, derogatory, etc.)

You and a number of other posters on the thread may not like how the hiring game is played, but the rules aren't going to change any time soon. If you want to enjoy success in a career (or even just find a job), you need to accept that and learn how to play well. Some very good advice has been posted in this thread. You should accept it in the spirit it was offered.

[Claudia Jones]

63. correct

Some on the thread do not like how the hiring game is played, and we are expressing our views. I also think that "the rules aren't going to change any time soon" is a poor excuse for failing to speak out against injustice. I think I have accurately understood the spirit in which it was offered, and I dissent from that point of view and I reject it.

[badtoworse]

64. Good luck. I think you are going to need it. - nt

[Claudia Jones]

74. "luck"

It is not about "luck" or any other magical thinking from the realm of individualism and self help idiocy. You are saying "good luck to you personally" and the implication (implied threat, really) is that those who stand up against injustice and fail to first and foremost "look out for number one" and who betray their fellow workers will suffer personally.

Yes, it is dangerous, and not socially approved by the bosses and their sycophants and toadies to stand strong for Labor. You apparently think that is a good thing.

[Leftist Agitator]

65. See, the problem is that the world doesn't revolve around Claudia Jones.

You don't like how the "hiring game" is played? Best of luck to you being perpetually unemployed. Injustice? What is so unjust about employing people?

Wealth does not a bad person make. Yes, many of the very wealthy *are* greedy assholes, but for you to characterize anyone in a position to offer a job opportunity as some soulless capitalist bastard is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

If you want better wages and working conditions for all employees, I suggest that you work to get progressive legislators elected who will raise the minimum wage (thus enhancing compensation for everyone), and will aggressively pursue protecting the interests of American workers.

Either that, or you can sit at home and whine on message boards about how horribly unjust the world is, either way...

[JI7]

70. also, not all employers/businesses hiring are wealthy

many are struggling or make low or middle income for the owners.

[Claudia Jones]

73. right

Not all slave owners were evil, and not all were wealthy.

The argument you and the other poster are using has been used against every movement for social justice. It is illogical and misleading.

[JI7]

84. hahha, calling employers slave owners ? what bs, no wonder people like you

are not able to get people on your side on certain issues.

[Claudia Jones]

89. I am not trying to

I am not trying to "get people on my side." I am taking the side of the working people. See the difference? It is a distinctly upper class notion that the task is to "sell" people on "our ideas" and it is inherently anti-democratic and applies the corporate business model to issue of public policy and social and economic problems. This is not about "ideas," it is about conditions

[JI7]

91. and many small business people are working people

many struggle, make far less than people who work for others.

[Claudia Jones]

136. of course

No one is suggesting otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

179. You are NOT taking the side of the working people...

I'm one of those working people, and when a job in my team becomes vacant, I don't want it filled by some drama-queen who wants to air all their personal drama. I want to be working with someone who can do the job, be part of the team, and who got the job on their merits. When I applied for the position I've got now, I prepared for the interview and there's no way I would have gone in there and started talking about personal stuff. I've also been on the other side of the fence and will probably raise the ire of some in this thread because when we were shortlisting for interview, I automatically discarded an application where the reply to every selection criteria was 'I can do this really well.'

[Scout]

190. + 10,000 n/t

[Claudia Jones]

72. unbelievable

And this comes from a "Leftist Agitator." If it were not so sad it would be funny.

Turning your response into a sneering personal attack is a strong indication that your argument is flawed and weak.

Would you really have us believe that the success of organized Labor has cone from people "work(ing) to get progressive legislators elected who will raise the minimum wage?" What sort of "leftist agitator" would think that?

No, all wealthy people are not evil, just as all slave owners were not evil. That is a highly reactionary talking point, one that was used to defend slavery and one that was used to attack organized Labor throughout all of the struggles.

What is unjust about employing people? The "leftist agitator" is asking that question. Yes, employment is inherently exploitative, regardless of whether a boss is a "good" human being or not. That is the entire point of the game - pay people the absolute least you can get away with, extract the maximum productivity from them you can, and pocket the difference. That is called "winning" and is the foundation for the system we live under, it permeates every nook and cranny of our social relations and dominates all of our organizations, the economy and the political system. Any point of view other than this is siding with management, with the bosses, and is prompting the agenda of the political right wing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. So what's your solution?

Seriously, what's your solution? No one works and everyone gets a free living expenses check from the government? How does the government get money? Who provides goods and services, since we can't oppress any workers in your utopia?

Marxism is precious the same way unicorns and fairies are precious. It's a nice fantasy for children who want everything to be perfect for everyone in a world that most decidedly is not.

[Claudia Jones]

139. say what?

"No one works and everyone gets a free living expenses check from the government" is a right wing talking point.

The workers in the country provide goods and services; always will, always have. The idea that without bosses this would not happen is, again, pure right wing propaganda.

[WildEyedLiberal]

202. You said "employment is inherently exploitative"

The opposite of employment is unemployment. You are either employed, and you produce something for a living, or you are not. One can be "employed" in any number of ways, but if you are earning money because of a good you make or a service you provide, then you are employed. I have no idea how you envision a world without employment, which is why I asked. If you'd said that the US managerial culture is inherently exploitative, then I would agree.

[Leftist Agitator]

141. Hmmm...

"Yes, employment is inherently exploitative, regardless of whether a boss is a "good" human being or not. That is the entire point of the game - pay people the absolute least you can get away with, extract the maximum productivity from them you can, and pocket the difference."

And so what sort of Marxist fantasy do you embrace? One in which nobody is employed at all? Without capital investment, modern civilization couldn't exist. Everyone contributing his or her labor in the absence of any heavy machinery or modern distribution network ensures a totally agrarian, subsistence farming society. If that's what you're after, good for you. There are plenty of countries that function that way (albeit for different reasons), I suggest that you visit them in search of your Communist paradise.

What motivation is there to get up and work hard in the absence of monetary remuneration? Why try to do a better job if it doesn't make a difference as far as your own interests are concerned? And who makes decisions regarding production in this Communist worker's paradise? Do you end up with a system of "All are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

Christ, Communists are the Leftist version of Ayn Rand worshipers; loudmouthed assholes who run around decrying a system they know little about with even louder proclamations that their ideas are right, and anyone who would dare disagree is the enemy to be destroyed. And just like Rand's acolytes, they fail to realize that their pie-in-the-sky political philosophy is contingent upon living in a perfect world filled with perfect humans, which of course is an utterly nonsensical notion to anyone who has lived in this crazy world of ours filled with complex, unpredictable people.

One day, you'll grow up a bit more, and realize that even though your ideas might be viable in a perfect world, in the *real* world, they simply are not.

[Claudia Jones]

144. there we go

You have no response to the message apparently, so time to go after the messenger.

Every single achievement for social progress was at one time characterized as "ideas that might be viable in a perfect world" but "in the *real* world, they simply are not." That is the most common argument over the centuries used against those fighting for justice.

Your thesis is absurd and illogical - that people will not work, will have no motivation if they do not submit to a boss and receive a paycheck. That is pure right wing trickle down supply side nonsense.

[Leftist Agitator]

146. OK then, O wise one...

What motivation is there for the average person to work, absent a paycheck?

"...will have no motivation if they do not submit to a boss and receive a paycheck. That is pure right wing trickle down supply side nonsense."

OK, now you're conflating several things here. I already addressed the motivation to work, so the ball's in your court now, as far as that goes. I contend that very, very few people would be willing to work without realizing any tangible personal gain from doing so. Would you, you personally, be willing to go to work every day and get nothing in return?

'Submitting' to a boss has nothing to do with motivation, period. Nothing. Who does this mythical employee work for, if not for him/herself and not a boss? The state can't employee everyone, you know. And even if they did, you can't make every important decision by a democratic vote, it's too cumbersome and unresponsive a system to manage day-to-day affairs such as those involved in producing goods or services.

And I don't think you quite understand what "...right wing trickle down supply side nonsense" really is. Or maybe you're being deliberately obtuse, but in either case, let me inform you,

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

I don't agree with any of those ideas, and I sincerely doubt that anyone on DU would. What you're describing as "supply side nonsense" we in the reality based community call "basic capitalism".

"Every single achievement for social progress..."

Social progress is one thing, a proposed economic system that violates fundamental tenets of human psychology and sociology is quite another.

[Claudia Jones]

148. your question

"What motivation is there for the average person to work, absent a paycheck?"

You make such a strong argument against yourself with that question, that I will let it stand without rebuttal.

[FrodosPet]

147. EVERYONE who works has bosses

Whether your boss is a sole proprietor, a faceless corporation, a worker's committee, or, if you are self-employed, your customers, you have a boss.

Even if you are living on your own in the woods, sustenance farming, the soil, weather, and pests are your boss. They control what you can grow, and how much of it you will receive.

And if you want to run to Marx to save you from a life of toil: Under Marxism, there is an "Equal obligation of all to work"

[Claudia Jones]

149. your definition

Your definition of "boss" is so broad that it renders the word meaningless. Are you suggesting that the weather as a "boss" is no different than a slave owner as a boss? After all, they are both "bosses," and according to you we all need bosses.

I said that people do and always have worked without a boss or paycheck driving them. I did not say that people should not work.

The question is this: would people work without someone bossing them and forcing them too? The slave owners, the robber barons, the feudal lords, the great monopolists and the current right wing and US Chamber of Commerce all say "no." Human experience and all of history says "yes."

[Leftist Agitator]

150. OK then...

"The question is this: would people work without someone bossing them and forcing them too? The slave owners, the robber barons, the feudal lords, the great monopolists and the current right wing and US Chamber of Commerce all say "no." Human experience and all of history says "yes."

Um, when, the hunter/gatherer era? Human society has been stratified ever since we banded together in units larger than one's own family. And this "work" of which you speak consists of obtaining food, water, and procuring shelter, nothing more. Oh, I suppose that you could include the production of music and art for the sake of enjoyment, but what you are seemingly proposing is that we go back to the fucking stone age!

"Human experience and all of history says "yes."

You don't know very much about history, do you? Throughout human history, even prior to the invention of money, there have been those who have more, and those who have less. Nobody is forcing anybody to work, outside of the prison-industrial complex (which is a whole other kettle of fish). You are free to choose not to work and live on the streets surviving on the charity of others, or starve to death. Nobody is preventing you from making that choice.

"I said that people do and always have worked without a boss or paycheck driving them."

Doing what, exactly? Provisioning themselves with food, water, and shelter?

Please, elaborate. This oughta be good...

[Claudia Jones]

154. correct

Work consists of providing for human needs - the needs you dismiss contemptuously - to include "obtaining food, water, and procuring shelter."

Are you seriously trying to claim that without a boss and a paycheck people would not - have not - done this? Would not be motivated? And you call me "ignorant of history?"

[Leftist Agitator]

158. Oh, wow...

If you want to go all anarcho-primitivist, and have nothing but disdain for the many wonderful accomplishments of human civilization, then more power to you. The rest of we non-crazy folk rather enjoy living in a society that offers more than a meager hand-to-mouth existence. In other words, without "bosses and paychecks", we would have nothing but a simple, agrarian (at best) society.

Without the power structures and capitalist economic system that we have, we would be little more than primitives who still have no command of any technology other than stone tools and fire. Are you seriously contending that humanity would be better off as such limited creatures?

I doubt it. You strike me as an idealistic, sincere yet deeply misguided soul who has your head filled with notions of unlimited egalitarianism predicated on such pie-in-the-sky ideas as going back to the most primitive roots of the human condition, and restarting our society predicated on the hunter-gatherer paradigm that we wisely abandoned so long ago.

It's not going to happen, nor should it, in my opinion. Given the world that we live in, you can either try and change the opinion of the masses with your passionate, fiery rhetoric that will be ignored by the majority of people, or you can accept that we live in an imperfect world, and try to incrementally change things for the better within the confines of the system, flawed though it may be, under which we currently live.

The choice is yours.

[Claudia Jones]

163. more straw men

I did not express contempt "for the many wonderful accomplishments of human civilization." I have not promoted primitivism nor anarchism.

Without power structures and capitalism we would be little more than primitives?

Much of the rest of your post is malicious speculation about the messenger rather than a response to the message, and the mere repetition of platitudes and cliches commonly used to defend the status quo.

[Leftist Agitator]

164. Look...

I'm done. If you want to wallow in willful ignorance, I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. Good luck with your proposed Marxist Paradise, because luck will be the only thing that holds it together.

I have given you ample rebuttals to your wild-eyed speculation, but instead of another cogent response, I will offer you a piece of advice:

If all you see are bad things about others, all you shall reap from your interactions with others shall be bad things.

You have a nice life now. Or not. It's really up to you...

P.S. Here in the real world, people like you are mocked for your abject idiocy. So if you ever grow up and decide to get a real job, you might wish to bear that truism in mind. And again, best O' luck to ye.

:)

[Claudia Jones]

170. thanks Yoda

May the force be with me. Maybe I should read "the Secret."

[Leftist Agitator]

165. OK, one last thing.

Please describe, in detail, your proposed alternative economic system. I shall await your explication with bated breath.

[Claudia Jones]

171. don't be childish

There is no such thing as "alternative economic systems." That is just a catchy meaningless phrase for the naive and gullible, to frighten them away from analyzing and criticizing the current conditions. This is as absurd as countering a call for the end to slavery with "please describe, in detail, your proposed alternative economic system to slavery." Apologists for slavery did say that very thing. The alternative to slavery was, and is freedom. There was no need for Abolitionists to come up with some detailed "alternative system" in order to oppose slavery.

I am not so arrogant as to imagine that I have some detailed alternative economic plan to impose on people. I trust people to devise and implement the organizations and systems that are appropriate to their needs and desires.

[Scout]

191. unless they desire the present system though, eh? n/t

[FrodosPet]

151. Isn't that volunteerism?

Volunteers are noble human beings who offer their labor without direct financial compensation. Usually, it is on a part-time basis. They still need food, shelter, and clothing. This may be provided by a family member, a friend, a socially conscious patron, a social service agency, or (gasp) a job, but they need calories and protection from the elements to continue to work.

Their rewards may be more emotional than financial, but don't kid yourself. They are still doing it for reward. Whether it is recognition, experience, boosting a resume, or simple self satisfaction, they are getting something out of it. And there is usually some type of supervisor. Somebody somewhere is organizing, gathering resources, defining a goal, and directing the effort. This may be an individual, it may be a committee, but it is SOMEONE or SOME PEOPLE.

We are a species of cooperative traders. I give you A, you give me B. In an ideal situation, A and B are of comparable value. The way to achieve that is through confidence and competence.

[Claudia Jones]

155. no

It is called "living in cooperative human communities." It is the rule throughout human existence, not the exception.

Who said that people do not do things in hope of a reward? Not I. You are setting up straw men to knock down with this post.

[FreeJoe]

196. Even better than speaking out...

Show us how it is done. If your way is so great, laborers will flock to your company.

[Marrah_G]

47. I never bring personal things into the workplace

Once in a while I will share a tidbit of my life, especially if I need time off for a reason. Sometimes my boss and I speak about how are kids are doing in school. That's about it.

I think when you interview your focus should be on the job and how you will be an asset to the company.

[aikoaiko]

48. Also, respond to the job ad elements in your letter and resume

I just worked through a preliminary sort of applications for a job -- a nice desk job at 55K.

60% didn't address how they met the minimum qualifications listed in the job ad in their cover letters or resumes and now they won't get considered further.

When employers require certain knowledge, skills and talents. Address those items explicitly.

[MissB]

104. That seems like such a no-brainer.

I was recently promoted. In applying for the promotion, I answered the three questions presented, showing how my skills and experience lined up with the required qualifications. The other two applicants had identical experience, but I was the only one that actually answered the questions. I got the job. Boss said I made it easy by answering the questions.

[aikoaiko]

169. You'd be surprised how many people don't link their skills and talents to the minimum qualifications

I think its because many are just using boiler plate letters and standard resumes.

[Enrique]

51. hot messes have to eat n/t

[zipplewrath]

61. Thank your lucky stars

You should be grateful it was so easy to have these folks "self select". Trying interviewing "polished" candidates and it's hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff. You can get real losers that "interview well". The flip side is that on more than one occassion, I've gotten a recommendation/reference from someone who would call back later and say "Oh, by they way, they'll be a really bad interview, but don't let that stand in the way".

The West Wing did a whole schtick on that with Lily Tomlin's character. Took like 3 interviews to get her hired as the presidents secretary.

Bottom line is that it is hard to pick really good candidates from the standard interview process. It's why so many over the years have preferred some variation of the "crony" system, or referal system. Our vendors regularly request we sign agreements stipulating that we WON'T hire their employees. They get tired of having their best employees cherry picked by their customers. Too bad too. Had a machinist at one of them do one heck of a bang up job for us/me in a real pinch. I was standing there with a part in my hand in total wonderment of what he achieved on such short notice. Mostly as a compliment, I looked at the guy and asked if he ever wanted to live where WE were located. His boss came FLYING across the shop to remind me of the agreement we signed.

Oh, and he came across as a real troll too. Would have been a lousy interview. But the guy could cut metal like no ones business.

[MedicalAdmin]

68. I'm afraid I'm guilty of cheery picking, sorta.

I pay attention to employees at other companies like coffee shops, etc to find front end people for our clinic. I am looking for organization, empathy and professionalism. Our last receptionist was a former patient and the one before that was a waitress who was thrilled at the higher salary and better hours. She was a gem. And then the VA cheery picked her from us. I didn't mind tho because now she refers VA patients to us.

[Honeycombe8]

110. This is a great post. You're describing ME! I do lousy interviews.

One reason is...I haven't done very many of them.

I've been at my firm for about 24 years...I have an excellent reputation for being a team player, being a high producer of work, being nice, etc., etc.

In the last 10 years, I've interviewed a few times to check out the jobs, to see if I could change to a job that required less overtime or whatever. I didn't get the jobs. One thing may have been my salary...it had built up over the years with raises. Even though I was quite prepared to take a big paycut, employers are uncomfortable with that.

But mainly, I just rambled on and on, and just wouldn't shut up! I was nervous, and I tend to ramble when I get nervous. The first interviews seemed to go well, but I'd screw up in the 2nd interviews...you know, where I knew the pressure was on. I'm glad they didn't hire me (for reasons that don't matter). But, I think now, boy did they screw up! I'm an outstanding employee, one of the best at my job (so say the various people I've worked for), I'm a hard worker, non-complainer, cheery attitude, rarely miss work except for planned days off...I'm just a slam dunk good employee. I'm also highly skilled (I don't lie on my resume and say I know software I don't know).

But they couldn't get past my poor interviewing skills. And they couldn't understand why I'd want to leave a job where I'd been for over 15 years. I guess that's unusual.

The trick is to chill, not to care so much, I guess.

[The Midway Rebel]

71. Condescending

As fuck. Enjoy your power trip.

[Claudia Jones]

75. hear hear

That's it, yes. Middle management people and small business owners, arrogant and condescending, enjoying the power they can wield over other human beings and justifying that and assuaging their consciences by spouting diatribes against "them."

[bettyellen]

98. Thank you. Ms Jones. We'll get back to you.

[Claudia Jones]

193. to the contrary

We will get back to you and that day grows closer.

[Nye Bevan]

103. "Leave the baggage at home" is "condescending as fuck"?

I actually think it's good advice, straightforwardly offered. Quite a few DUers are unemployed and would welcome advice on how to interview, offered by someone who actually does the interviewing.

[sixmile]

114. +1

My advice stands.

I would offer more, but the thread has turned into a real fest. Some here are to the left of Marx!

I can't relate.

[Nye Bevan]

116. You've definitely earned yourself a place on the enemies list, come the revolution (nt)

[The Midway Rebel]

118. Running from your hot mess?

Here is my advice to you: people's lives are not baggage.

[Nye Bevan]

132. I'm sure there is some compelling tragicomic drama in your life.

But the point is, the job interviewer doesn't care and isn't interested. All he cares about is how well you will do the job.

[The Midway Rebel]

137. Exactly.

It is so Captain Obvious type of shit advice that added with the words "baggage" and "hot mess" it comes off as condescending. It ain't about Marx as much as it is about personal relationships. I'm sorry if you and the OP cannot grok that. Most unfortunate is that the OP is in a position of power over people.

[coalition_unwilling]

126. Don't forget 'patronizing' and 'sneering' (two words that

characterized my reading of the tone of the OP).

[supernova]

78. That cuts both ways buster

First of all. I'm a great worker, professional attitude and bring up inocuous bits of personal life maybe once every two months.

Interviews are really about a working first date. As a prospective employee I want to know if I will like working there. I try to ask things like:

!) What's a typical day for the person in this job?

2) What are the three top priorities for this job in order to be successful at it?

3) What is the chain of command? If a large corp. is this boss here or remote? Who are my coworkers?

I try to stay on point for the most part and being introverted, I'm just not the kind of person who spills my guts to random strangers anyway.

I can't tell you how many times I've had the interviewer try to tell me *their* lifestory before ever getting around to the purpose of the meeting.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndyPragmatist]

82. Some of the responses are troubling

My supervisor told me two weeks ago that we had some funds to hire an intern. He actually had our secretary working for days to try and find enough funds so that we could pay them instead of making it a volunteer internship. All we could pay was minimum wage, but the students get college credit for it, so they are getting compensated that way.

We put out the announcement and I got about 15 applications. Of the 15, only about 5 had anywhere near the qualifications we were looking for. I interviewed all 5. The first person I interviewed starting talking about how difficult it was to find internships right now, but played that into a reason why she would have worked hard and done well for us. The next person said the same thing about the internship market, except he went on and on about how depressing it was. We ended up bringing one the first person. She was by far the best fit for the job, so the kids complaining didn't factor into the decision really. However, if it was a close call between the girl we hired and this guy, I would have absolutely given it to the girl with the positive outlook.

Some people act like they should be given a job because they showed up. I know that minimum wage sucks, and I wish we could have offered more. But it was that or nothing and the girl we hired was more than happy to get an internship that will give her college credit, professional experience to put her ahead of others when she graduates, and is compensated for it.

But I guess I'm evil for not paying our intern $20/hour or giving her the job because she was better.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

94. interns are temporary so could be more affordable than regular employee

either way the employers are have to pay bills also. some people act as if all employers are the same and have millions and billions of dollars they can easily spend.

when i first went to get a job my attitude wasn't right. it was a low paying job . but i don't see anything wrong with giving tips on how they could be hired .

[Honeycombe8]

105. That's part of what some employees don't get. Part of the qualifications for ANY job,

I would think, would be being someone that other people can stand being around and working with. It's human nature. Who wants to be around someone who's negative and complaining and whining and feels entitled? Whether it's a low level job, mid-management, or executive. Such a person is a total downer.

That's not to say that it's out of line to mention something obvious...like if you've been unemployed for six months, and the interviewer mentions it, the interviewee can say something like it's been hard, so few jobs and all....that's a real response that acknowledges the situation w/o being a depressing, moping person. As long as you end optimistically, I guess.

[hunter]

96. I think employers should have to compete against a generous welfare system.

Abusive low wage employers wouldn't be able to find employees who would put up with their shit.

A generous welfare system accomplishes a few things.

Number one, it provides for people who are unemployable, those who have "personal baggage," mental illness, personality disorders, simple ass-backwards cussedness, whatever.

Number two it puts fear into the hearts of abusive managers that one day they will fuck up badly enough that their employees will say "take this job and shove it," and walk out, because frankly welfare would be better than a crappy minimum wage job with an abusive boss. Most mentally fit people would rather work than be idle so there will always be plenty of incentive to find and create good jobs.

Number three, a generous welfare system keeps money circulating in the economy of ordinary people to the benefit of everyone, most especially small businesses and communities, and prevents the ordinary economy from going rotten when Wall Street and the politicians take a dump. People living at the bottom of the economic ladder have to spend their money on things like food and clothing and basic shelter whatever the hell the stock and bond markets are doing. They never throw huge piles of money onto the gaming tables of Wall Street where it circulates uselessly to the detriment of all but the obscenely wealthy.

The plain fact is that some people can't leave their baggage at home, but everyone has got to eat.

[Honeycombe8]

107. Mmmm...I think you really don't understand what employers want in an employee.

You think they should compete with a "generous welfare system" for employees? The thing is...most employers don't WANT employees who would be happy being on welfare.

Something bad happens to people after they've been employed a long time then lose their jobs. They also lose a sense of self worth. That's because working for a living gives something to a person that welfare does not. It feels good to know that you are good at DOING something, and someone else pays you to do that. That your own work has paid for your house, your car, whatever. That you haven't had to live on charity or welfare. It helps self esteem. You also make friends with co-workers; there's a social aspect to it. It also helps to have time structure.

If a person is the kind of person who sees welfare as an alternative lifestyle, then employers wouldn't want that person as an employee, to begin with. That kind of person would also make a lousy employee.

[hunter]

115. You misread me.

Employees can't quit horrible low wage jobs now because the consequences can be so brutal.

Therefore these horrible jobs continue to exist. People will work two part time jobs for abusive bosses and live without complaint for fear of losing these jobs.

Disreputable employers hire undocumented workers for the same reason, taking advantage of the same sorts of fear. Undocumented workers are in a tough situation and will tolerate a lot of abuse.

If we have a generous welfare system, free colleges and adult education, and very strict labor regulations, then nobody has to settle for a shitty, abusive, low wage job. Mentally fit people will seek good jobs and employers will have to create these good jobs or they will not find employees.

There would still be low wage jobs, but without the abuses, and people will still choose these jobs over welfare for the reasons you state, but not because they fear being cast out onto the streets among the hungry and homeless.

[FrodosPet]

153. Dirty Jobs

Floors need to be mopped. Toilets need to be scrubbed. Trash needs to be gathered, dishes need to be washed, crops need to be harvested, food needs to be packaged, prepared, and distributed.

A modern healthy society just doesn't work if everyone is a professional artist or philosopher, or has some other "good" job. So as long as there is civilization, there will be dirty jobs. People in those jobs deserve respect and adequate compensation. But in the nature of man and math, as long as there are people who are willing to do it for lower wages, they will pay what they pay.

The ultimate issue is not the number of dollars, but what those dollars will buy. If you double the pay, but cut the purchasing power of those doubled dollars in half, what is the benefit?

[hunter]

156. I've had dirty jobs.

I've cleaned preschool bathrooms, warehouses that deal with stuff that spills and rots, carted around medical waste, refurbished student housing during the summer (dirtiest job by far ... think vomit and used condoms), etc.

If you don't have a psycho-abusive boss, one who doesn't think everyone beneath him is a "hot mess," and the pay is okay, these are not bad jobs, just dirty jobs.

Your libertarian notion of wages is wrong. If there is a class of people who can be abused, then there will be bosses who abuse them. Every one of us needs to be in a position where we can walk away from an abusive job and even say "Fuck You Goodbye Asshole" to an abusive boss without putting ourselves in grave danger of homelessness and hunger.

[FrodosPet]

160. Walking away from abusive situations

People who develop useful skills through education and experience, who develop self confidence, and place personal effort into seeking out opportunities for occupational growth become more valuable to prospective employers and customers. What you seem to be advocating is that a lack of effort should not carry a penalty in lack of status or opportunity.

When there are others who value what you can offer more than the dirtbag you are working for, you have more power. My hope and dream is that the people who are suffering from unemployment and underemployment learn to develop their opportunities.

Safety nets are great. But turning them into hammocks does not help anyone.

[hunter]

162. So if you can't find a good job and are forced to take one where you are abused, it's your fault?

Do you believe that?

All those Grapes of Wrath Okies who came to California in the dust bowl, and put up with shit from the growers and factory owners, and the armed thugs telling them to move on, it was their fault? All those coal miners who died of black lung, suffocated, drowned, or were crushed in the mines, it was their fault? Etc., etc., etc. The U.S.A. has a pretty dark history with that sort of thing.

"The way it is" is not the natural order of things. Our society is structured to serve the dirty scumbags at the very top. Anyone who disturbs that structure is threatened very directly with deprivation or even death.

Hammocks are the bare minimum anyone deserves simply for being a human. Otherwise you are telling humans who, for whatever reason, can't find work that it's their own fault and they should just go hide somewhere and rot.

[FrodosPet]

166. Wow you are not even close.

I am not defending the abuse of laborers. My point is that people who make an effort to improve their situation have a better chance at improving their situation than those who are hoping for the charity of others to do it.

And I am not saying that it is always the fault of the worker. But there are involuntary reasons - disability, bad timing, bad luck, etc and there are voluntary reasons - someone is too lazy or pointlessly disagreeable.

I admit the lazy part of me would appreciate being able to sleep in, do what I want when I want, and have everything I need to survive and enjoy myself without having to work. Understanding that about myself is why I think it is a bad idea: nothing would ever get done.

[Honeycombe8]

177. It's simple suppy and demand. There are a lot more people who can do the dirty jobs...

there aren't very many people who can fill the job vacancy of a rocket scientist at NASA or a movie star guaranteed to bring in gazillions at the theatre. So the scientist and Tom Cruise get paid a LOT more than the millions who are qualified to push a mop.

If you had a restaurant, you would expect to pay your top chef a LOT more than the several busboys you have. The reason is....there are a LOT of people who would be qualified to be busboys...but you'd have a hard timing finding a really good top chef, and the success of your restaurant would depend on your finding the right one.

One thing I've learned in life from being raised in a union city and working most of my life, including through recessions is...learn how to DO something for a living. Literally. Not just push a mop and whatever. But learn how to DO something that someone will pay money for someone to do. Second is...be prepared to have a SECOND way to earn a living, if your chosen path goes bust. Example: Become a paralegal by going to a paralegal school or getting an associate's degree in that; as a second career, learn excellent computer skills so that you can ALSO be a legal secretary. With those two things, a person will probably never be unemployed.

Or...become a nurse. RN or LPN. There is always a demand for nurses somewhere, at a variety of institutions. Hospitals, nursing homes, doctor's offices, clinics.

All these jobs I've mentioned are ones where you work long and hard and are underpaid in the beginning, but as time goes on, you find you're never unemployed, the benefits start mounting up, you get free health insurance, and the raises start adding up. But no, very few people get great working hours and high pay to begin with.

[Claudia Jones]

200. this is a big part of the problem

There was a time when the point of getting extra or specialized training was to make a real contribution and to serve others, not to make more money. Today the two are inextricably locked together and this is a major source of the growing inequality and also of the rightward political drift.

The reason why people with more education are paid more is not because they are making a greater contribution or because they have more skill, rather they are paid more because they are the "palace guard" defending and promoting the system that benefits the few at the top. That is the main "skill" that people learn through higher education - how to defend and promote the status quo.

It is almost an ironclad rule that the greater the contribution a person is making to the general welfare, the greater the self-sacrifice, the lower they are paid. The more self-serving the work is, the more anti-social, the more useful it is to the bosses for the purpose of maintaining their power at the expense of the general welfare, the higher people are paid.


You are promoting right wing supply-side and free market ideas here, and you are applying those ideas to workers - to human beings.

[Honeycombe8]

204. I don't know how old you are or what your parents told you, but it's always been about $$$$.

Rule #1 - Everyone, absolutely every adult, needs to work for a living and take care of himself and his/her dependents.

Rule #2 - The point of working is, first and foremost, to make money to take care of yourself and your family. If you're lucky, or rich, or smart and educated, you can also do something for a living that is more enjoyable than some other things.

You may call that self-serving, but what a warped view that is. If you are able to take care of yourself and your dependents, you are doing a favor to society by not being a burden. That is a person's first responsibility.

I am not "pushing" supply and demand. That is the way it is, the way it has always been. It doesn't have to be pushed or not pushed. It is based in human nature.

If you go to sell something on E-bay, how would you determine how much to charge for it? If it's rare, signed by Elvis, and you have the only one...are you saying you'd sell it for $1? Of course not. Even if you would, the buyers would out-bid each other and compete to try to be the one who gets it.

If we were in a GREAT ECONOMY, and companies in your occupation were desperately seeking people who could do your kind of work, are you saying you would REFUSE the higher pay that employers would offer you, to entice you to go work for them? Of course not.

It is the law of HUMAN NATURE. Someone else is willing to up the value on something that is valuable and more rare than something else. You do not exist in a vacuum. There are other people who want, and will compete, for what you want.

It has always been this way. More so in the old days than now. In the old days, people in America worked longer hours, for less pay. Altho middle class pay has stayed the same or gotten less in teh last several decades.

People who work in social fields ("serving others") do not get less pay than those who do not. It all depends. It depends on the skills required for the job, how many jobs there are, how many people are competing for those jobs, etc.

We don't pay for jobs according to the value that Claudia assigns them. The problem with assigning a "value" to jobs is...who decides the value? You? Me? Santa Claus? A rural dentist, who is totally self-serving in your view, may be performing a service of more value than a social worker in an inner city, since that dentist may be the only way that some people have access to dental care, and there are other social workers in that inner city. Both are important jobs.

[Claudia Jones]

206. personalizing everything is inherently reactionary

You insist on personalizing everything, and the thin, and powerless and inconsequential, veneer of liberalism you apply as camouflage does not change the fact that it is Ayn Rand individualism and Reaganomics that you are promoting.

[Honeycombe8]

176. No, I don't think I misunderstood entirely. Welcome to the adult world. Work is hard.

People have a recourse now for abusive bosses. You can leave and go work somewhere else. Besides, what you call abusive is not what someone else may call abusive.

Many Americans, esp. younger ones, were raised a bit spoiled. It's been a shocker for them to go out in the world and find out how it is and what things cost, and how hard you have to work for things. That's the way life is for most people. You work long, you work hard, and almost EVERYONE thinks he's underpaid.

You can plan to do something for a living where you get paid more, you can move to a city with more job opportunities, you can move to a different job if you don't like the one you have. All these are options. What is NOT an option is to quit and have someone else who is working long and hard and being underpaid to pay for that person who quit to sit out and wait until something better comes knocking at his door. BTW, nothing better comes knocking at the door.

You hurt your chances for better employment by going on welfare.

I agree with you on free college education, though. That would be better for the country as a whole.

[hunter]

198. Sure, you can leave work, lose your housing, car, family, and everything else.

Or you can grit your teeth and put up with the abuse of your condescending misogynist, racist, sexually harassing, or otherwise "hot mess" boss.

That's the problem. Many people can't escape to better jobs. There are no jobs waiting, no place to go, no recourse. It's a totally fucked up situation.

The streets are mean.

[Honeycombe8]

205. Geez...where do you work? You need to report them. There are laws againt

racism and sexual harassment in the work place.

Hey...I was a babe once (I'm in my 50's now), so I doubt you've experienced any more sexism and harassment than I faced when I was young.

Get a better job. Yes, people CAN escape to better jobs. Yes, there ARE jobs waiting, places to go to.

You may have to wait a year. You may have to move to where the jobs are. You may have to go to night school. You make a plan, and you work towards that goal.

Or, you can stay where you are and hope to marry a sugardaddy or sugarmama to take you away from it all, so you can quit work entirely. OR..you can stay where you work for 40 years and complain about it every day. It's your choice.

But I can guarantee you one thing: Myself and other people who go to work every day, week after week, year after year, and have moved to find employment in the past, and worked towards goals...we're not going to support you while you sit at home and wait for the perfect employer to come knocking at your door. There are people who truly need that kind of assistance; I will reserve my help for them.

[Claudia Jones]

143. or so we are told

Yes, those lazy people seeking an "alternative lifestyle," and what sort of employees would they make? We all need to be "what employers want." Obviously what employers want - what they are compelled to seek - is getting the most value back for the least expense for them. Why should their "something for nothing" motivation dictate how all of the rest of us are forced to live, and who is it that is really on "welfare" in the scenario you set out here?

No, it is not the case that the people you are disagreeing with "really don't understand what employers want in an employee." To the contrary, they understand all too well, and they utterly reject it.

Something bad happens to people after they have employed others for a while. They lose all sense of humanity and dignity. That's because living and working in a cooperative spirit where you see others as equals gives something to a person that being boss does not. It feels good to know that you are succeeding not because you have power over other people - that you are good at DOING something other than just controlling and dominating others, and that people voluntarily seek you out to collaborate with, they don't crawl to you and cater to you out of desperation. They know that your house, your car, whatever, are a part of a cooperative communal effort, and that it is not "law of the jungle" every-man-for-himself, that we are all in it together.

Those attracted to positions of authority and power over others are most often those who cannot - or will not - relate to others as equals and are only comfortable relating to others by either having power over them, or by submitting to those who have power over them. This corrupts and debases all of us.

[Honeycombe8]

178. You won't make it in the world if your attitude is..hey, I'm SO great, just showing up oughtta

be enough for me to get paid $50,000 for pushing a mop!

Have you ever owned a business? If you have to hire someone to push a mop or bus tables, you would find that those jobs require few skills. Millions can do those jobs. That's the way it is...the more high skills a job requires, the fewer people who are able to fill those positions, the more education a job requires...those are the jobs that pay the most, for obvious reasons.

The younger generation has been raised spoiled. Welcome to the adult world. If you float around, not bothering to learning how to DO something that is valuable enough for someone else to pay you to do it, you can expect long hours and low wages. Or...you can learn how to do something so that you have something special to offer in the business world...and you get paid more. It's your choice.

There's nothing wrong with pushing a mop or waiting tables. I've done it. It's good, honest work. But I wanted to get paid more. Which required me to go back to school and learn how to DO something.

You have your point of view. You can insist on it. But it'll get you nowhere. No one wants an employee who feels entitled just for showing up (although showing up is a big part of being a good employee).

Get out in the world. Open your own business. Work around a little bit and be exposed to coworkers who are lazy and work less than you, but you find out get paid more than you. Your tune will change. You will begin to think...well, I work more...I work harder...I'm a better employee...shouldn't I get paid more than that lazy person who feels entitled? Yes, you should.

[Claudia Jones]

189. very sad

I find your post to be very sad. Yes, what you describe is exactly how many people have been driven to see things, and they cannot imagine any other way to live. Somehow they cannot connect those attitudes with the horrors that are associated with those attitudes. It is a strange disconnection, a strange inability to accurately perceive reality and apply any critical thinking to the issues.

You "see" what you see because of the filter through which you are looking at everything.

[Scout]

192. so come on Claudia, what's the solution? you're full of gripes and complaints

about the present system, and those that can get along in it...

but that's all you've got ... superior attitude, sense of entitlement ... but no solutions, just bitching.

from what you've said in this thread, i would not want you to be on my work team, ever. and i've been a worker, in dirty jobs, in office jobs, and a manager.

what has your work experience been so far?

[Claudia Jones]

194. LOL

Pretty funny post, Scout.

Shifting the focus of the discussion from the message to the messenger is an admission that you have no rebuttal.

[Scout]

195. right back atcha Claudia ... no answer to my questions i see. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

108. +1

[coalition_unwilling]

127. I like the cut of your jib - n/t

[Claudia Jones]

142. great post

Abusive managers is the problem, and we have people here praising the behavior and attitudes of abusive managers.

[FrodosPet]

152. People who can't help their condition should be helped.

Forgive me if I am misreading, but what I am seeing is that you advocate that people who are intentionally insensitive and emotionally abusive should be rewarded for their behavior, even when they have the wherewithal to change that behavior?

People shouldn't have to "go it alone". Anyone who needs help with a physical, mental, emotional, and/or social impairment should be able to find assistance. But people who CAN contribute to their own existence, and CAN positively contribute to the general condition, SHOULD contribute, so more financial and personal resources are available to the helpless.

As for bringing "baggage" to the workplace: Does the rest of the staff have the right to be free from being emotionally dragged down by constant complaining, or from insulting comments from the individual possessing "simple ass-backwards cussedness"?

[MikeW]

97. here's another

If your applying for a professional position show up for your interview

in a suit that FITS, clean shaven, hair cut / trimmed and ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO VISIBLE

PIERCINGS on your face, ears or neck.

[wundermaus]

109. When ever I go for a junk job interview, a little cartoon plays in my mind...

reminding me of dispair and futility of selling my time to meaningless, worthless, useless waste of space jobs...
Maakies - Drinky Crow - http://videosift.com/video/Maakies-Drinky-Crow-funny-animated-short

my advice to those who are seeking employment:
Work. for. your. self.
If you've got a skill, print up some business cards and start pounding the pavement.
I see people standing on street corners begging for money...
Sell something! A newspaper, bottled water, hotdogs from a hotdog stand or a bag of oranges.
Don't just stands there, DO what ever you can do:
Washing cars, mowing lawns, hauling trash, planting gardens, washing windows, or brain surgery.
What ever it is, just do it. Knock on Doors. Every. One.
What ever you buy, mark it up at least 100%. If it cost you a dollar, charge two.
What ever you earn, put the money in your pocket and spend 50% of what you earn for more inventory.
Rinse, wash, and repeat.
Keep doing this until you have enough money to start your dream business and then Do It.

[Honeycombe8]

112. Sounds like you have a spouse to pay the bills while you start your dream business.

For people like me...I need an income. I can't use my emergency fund for inventory while I take a stab at a business that might fail...because I need an income and have no one to pay the bills.

It's like the man I saw in a seminar on PBS...the guy who wrote that book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" or something like that. He never really explains what he did to begin with to become rich. Just that he was an entrepreneur. But as I listed to him drone on and on about how he made all this money by working for himself, and as I wondered...well, who supported him while he did that? He didn't make money or a profit for a while. Then he mentioned in passing....his wife. Who happens to be a professional. Who makes a lot of money herself. Bingo.

So this was a guy being supported by his wife, while he pursued his dream. And he made it. That's great. It's a good deal, if you can get it.

[wundermaus]

122. My advice does not require a "spouse's income".

For people like you? What makes you think you are different - that you need an income "now"?
Working for your self does not necessarily involve inventory.
For example, as a business owner, a few years ago I was visited routinely by a young man that visited ALL the local retail businesses with a bucket of soapy water, a bucket of rags and brushes, a squeegee, and a small step ladder. He offered his services to wash store front windows for ALL the businesses he could walk to. He charged a flat fee: 10 dollars. He did excellent work, more than one would expect - dusting window frames, picking up any trash, scraping up gum off the sidewalk, and even watering potted plants in the common area. A few months later he was doing gardening for local residents. The last time I saw him, he had more work than he could do by him self and was looking for someone to work with him.

[Honeycombe8]

175. Because there are bills to pay NOW. I'm not different. That's how it is for most people.

I guess you're very lucky that you can go some period of time without an income, and if there's no income at the end of your rainbow, you don't become homeless.

But a lot of people aren't able to be entrepreneurs for that very reason: They can't afford to go without an income, AND it takes some capital to start a business. Any business.

As most working people, I can't take a risk on a business that might fail, anyway. I need a sure thing. I need a guaranteed income.

There is no fallback position for me. There is no spouse's income, no daddy's Christmas gift, no loan from grandma for me.

Capiche? Yeah, I knew you'd get it, once you gave it some thought. You're a smart guy. After all, you're an entrepreneur, right?

[hunter]

129. WTF is wrong with Dilbert? Why doesn't he quit?

Start his own business? Get a better job?

Dogbert can take care of himself just fine.

[tawadi]

117. This is good advice

As harsh as it may sound.

[ibegurpard]

119. this is not advice

this is you complaing about "hot messes" and people's "baggage."
If you don't like it I suggest you find another line of work...something that doesn't require you to come into contact with all these "hot messes" looking for work.

[Curmudgeoness]

124. Good advice. It also goes for first dates.

I remember seeing an OP about long-term unemployed showing symptoms that were the same as PTS sufferers. But really, you have to make every effort to interview for the job you are applying for at this point in time. Upbeat, ready to work, and let them know what you can do for the company and what you have to offer.

Please, look forward, not to any problems in the past.

[Ishoutandscream2]

128. Very arrogant. Wish I wasn't too late to unrecommend

It's as if I'm listening to all my right wing acquaintances, bitching about how horrible low wage workers are and how they should be grateful for their shitty jobs and wages.

[Nye Bevan]

133. Sensible interview advice = "bitching about horrible low wage workers?"

Some weird reactions in this thread.

[hunter]

140. Oh balls.

Some of us radical rainbow flag waving left of Marx anti-corporate environmentalists understand right wing code talk.

The OP stinks of it.

[Claudia Jones]

145. yes

While it is disturbing that people are aggressively taking anti-worker positions here, what is more surprising to me is that so many people cannot even recognize that, so accustomed have they become to it.

[rucky]

157. What if you're interviewing for a baggage handler position?

[Leftist Agitator]

159. This made me lol hard.

:)

[FrodosPet]

161. Then you should be handling other people's baggage?

I suppose bring your own Samsonite for a demonstration of your skills -might- be OK, but complaining about your ex boss, former coworkers, and the cat next door crapping in your tulip bed is probably a bit much.

[Liberal_in_LA]

167. hee!

[TK421]

201. If your last name is Samsonite, they may hire you on the spot n/t

[elana i am]

168. i have some of my own advice

for hr people and hiring managers.

those of us that have been unemployed for 2 years do not want to have to answer questions about why we want to work at your company. i wasn't thinking about why i specifically wanted to work at your company when i was sending resumes to every job listing i was physically capable of doing whether i was truly qualified for it or not. i want to work for whoever will give me a job, so don't make me do a suck-up song and dance for you when you know full well that beggars can't be choosers. it's offensive and it's demoralizing.

[Occulus]

172. Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to Part of the Problem.

Hi, Part of the Problem!

[Enrique]

186. I think all interviewers should be made to be unemployed for 18 months

so they have the necessary empathy to deal with desperate people searching for a lifeline.

Regarding the behavior you describe, did you consider that some of these people have been rejected so many times they simply don't know what to do?

[FreeJoe]

197. Desperation is a tricky thing

I once interviewed about a dozen people for a contract software developer job. One of the candidates left me a lengthy voicemail that night describing how desperate he was and that he didn't know how he would feed his family if he didn't get this job. I'm sorry to say it, but that's not a winning move when trying to get a job, especially a short term job. He immediately went into the "security risk" pile. He wasn't going to get the job anyway, but that call would have likely disqualified him.

When you come in for an interview, you are protected by law from my asking any questions not relavant to your ability to perform the job. I can't ask if you are married, have kids, have a car (I can ask if you have a reliable means to get to and from work), like football, etc. On the flip side, I expect you not to discuss things not relavant to your ability to perform the job. To do so is not fair to the applicant pool as a whole.

With that said, everyone knows that a lengthy work history on a resume that avoids putting dates on anything generally means an older worker worried about age discrimination. Married men often prominantly display wedding rings and drop casual mention of their children. Smart interviewees often look for clues about their interviewer (like college rings, pictures in their office) to use to guide their comments. That's one reason why I always strip off my wedding and university rings and interview people in a conference room.

[killbotfactory]

199. As long as you understand that Inverviews are nerve-wracking for a lot of people.

And that it is hard for some people to give on the spot thoughtful replies to vague probing questions.

Potentially good employees just might not interview well for the above reasons.