Reading through Yahoo news this morning, I came across an article, and subsequent link, to this: Down But Not Out: http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/
It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.
Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.
Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).
Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.
For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.
So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.
You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wait, what?! Did I read that right?!
Please read this article before you read this blog post…..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Asking for Help
Now, more than ever, is the time to ask for help in your job search. Whether it be about your resume, the interview or how to network your way in to the perfect position; go for it, ask the question, ask for help.
Before you do that, however, I caution you: Be open to the responses.
Just a couple of weeks ago a candidate who contacted me directly had asked for feedback on her resume. I asked her if she had specific questions that I could address or just my impressions in general. “In general” she said, so off I went.
My first response was the Objective didn’t give me any additional or new information, so delete it. It’s not necessary if it offers nothing of value. Her response was that she read about it online and was keeping it.
My second response was to create a heading for “Volunteer Work” to clarify which positions were volunteer and which ones were for pay. The response was that it was obvious which positions were volunteer positions since they were all located in the same city where she lived. I’m sorry, I missed the connection. As a recruiter or hiring manager, how would I know that was volunteer work? Never before in my career have I come across this theory. I’ll have to think about this one.
Wearily, I ventured in to my third thought. Since the most recent experience was all volunteer (and not directly related to the overall career goals), let’s put the Education section first and highlight the Masters level degree obtained in the desired field. This will draw attention to the degree and bring into focus the scope of her education and how it will relate to the positions she’s interested. Back to the online article she read: the Education section should always be last on the resume, right above ‘References will be Provided Upon Request”.
After a long, really long, pause in which my jaw was slightly dropped, I asked her if there was anything else I could do to help her out. “Resume aside”, she said, “I just don’t know why no one will hire me”.
Hmmm. Me either.
Before you do that, however, I caution you: Be open to the responses.
Just a couple of weeks ago a candidate who contacted me directly had asked for feedback on her resume. I asked her if she had specific questions that I could address or just my impressions in general. “In general” she said, so off I went.
My first response was the Objective didn’t give me any additional or new information, so delete it. It’s not necessary if it offers nothing of value. Her response was that she read about it online and was keeping it.
My second response was to create a heading for “Volunteer Work” to clarify which positions were volunteer and which ones were for pay. The response was that it was obvious which positions were volunteer positions since they were all located in the same city where she lived. I’m sorry, I missed the connection. As a recruiter or hiring manager, how would I know that was volunteer work? Never before in my career have I come across this theory. I’ll have to think about this one.
Wearily, I ventured in to my third thought. Since the most recent experience was all volunteer (and not directly related to the overall career goals), let’s put the Education section first and highlight the Masters level degree obtained in the desired field. This will draw attention to the degree and bring into focus the scope of her education and how it will relate to the positions she’s interested. Back to the online article she read: the Education section should always be last on the resume, right above ‘References will be Provided Upon Request”.
After a long, really long, pause in which my jaw was slightly dropped, I asked her if there was anything else I could do to help her out. “Resume aside”, she said, “I just don’t know why no one will hire me”.
Hmmm. Me either.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Relatively Relative
Big article this morning on Yahoo about President Obama being related to Sarah Palin. Really?! Apparently so. They traced it back to a 17th century gentleman, John Smith, I believe (because there was only ONE John Smith back then).
Is this really a big deal? I am a little surprised I even took the time to read that article. I'll never get those 30 seconds back. Why the cynicism, you ask?
Does it really matter that Obama and Palin are reported to be 10th cousins? Or that Obama is related to Brad Pitt (wait, Brad Pitt?!?)? Or that former President Bush is realted to both Obama and Palin? Oh, the horror!! In my opinion, there is nothing of value in reporting that information. There is no value in looking for that information! What will we do with it once we have it? Nothing.
Except write an article and hope it ends up in some random blog somewhere where it can live in cyberspace infamy.
Now, back to Brad Pitt's family tree.....
Is this really a big deal? I am a little surprised I even took the time to read that article. I'll never get those 30 seconds back. Why the cynicism, you ask?
Does it really matter that Obama and Palin are reported to be 10th cousins? Or that Obama is related to Brad Pitt (wait, Brad Pitt?!?)? Or that former President Bush is realted to both Obama and Palin? Oh, the horror!! In my opinion, there is nothing of value in reporting that information. There is no value in looking for that information! What will we do with it once we have it? Nothing.
Except write an article and hope it ends up in some random blog somewhere where it can live in cyberspace infamy.
Now, back to Brad Pitt's family tree.....
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Price of Halloween
According to this article on www.msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39346852/ns/business-retail/), Americans will spend an estimated $5.8 billion on Halloween this year. The National Retail Federation indicates that people are going to spend about 18% more on Halloween this year than last, totaling about $66 per person. The break out is approximately $24 for a costume, $20 on candy and $20 on decorations.
Are you kidding me?! $20 on candy?! $20 on decorations?! And PAYING for a costume?!
When we were kids, we always dressed up as gypsies: pulled out the ‘dress clothes’, put on an old wig, lots of costume jewelry and a fancy scarf, and have big red rosy cheeks. Even my brother. Cutest little gypsy ever! Every once in a while, one of us was allowed to wear something that made us look like a pirate. Or a gypsy pirate, really. Candy? Big bag of suckers. Since we didn’t like suckers, every last one got handed out. And decorations? Decorations were simply the already-fallen leaves in the yard and carved pumpkins; nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and flashlights. Back then, that was plenty!
So what happened? When did this change? I’m not going to get into consumerism and how that’s changed over the years, blah, blah, blah. I think the focus is more about losing perspective. Wasn’t Halloween supposed to be a time for the kids to play dress up and hang out on a school night collecting candy that we would not normally ever let them eat? And didn’t the parents walk in groups themselves? Warm drink in hand; far enough away to let the kids have fun but close enough to comfort them when they tripped and fell.
The past couple of years have taught us a lot about scaling back, minimizing and becoming good neighbors again. We’ve been working on putting things back into perspective. We’re getting there; slowly but surely, we’ll get there.
This year, I think we’ll be gypsies and hand out suckers. Yea, that sounds good.
Are you kidding me?! $20 on candy?! $20 on decorations?! And PAYING for a costume?!
When we were kids, we always dressed up as gypsies: pulled out the ‘dress clothes’, put on an old wig, lots of costume jewelry and a fancy scarf, and have big red rosy cheeks. Even my brother. Cutest little gypsy ever! Every once in a while, one of us was allowed to wear something that made us look like a pirate. Or a gypsy pirate, really. Candy? Big bag of suckers. Since we didn’t like suckers, every last one got handed out. And decorations? Decorations were simply the already-fallen leaves in the yard and carved pumpkins; nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and flashlights. Back then, that was plenty!
So what happened? When did this change? I’m not going to get into consumerism and how that’s changed over the years, blah, blah, blah. I think the focus is more about losing perspective. Wasn’t Halloween supposed to be a time for the kids to play dress up and hang out on a school night collecting candy that we would not normally ever let them eat? And didn’t the parents walk in groups themselves? Warm drink in hand; far enough away to let the kids have fun but close enough to comfort them when they tripped and fell.
The past couple of years have taught us a lot about scaling back, minimizing and becoming good neighbors again. We’ve been working on putting things back into perspective. We’re getting there; slowly but surely, we’ll get there.
This year, I think we’ll be gypsies and hand out suckers. Yea, that sounds good.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Are White Lies OK?
We were told Santa Claus existed. We were told the Easter Bunny existed. We were told our dog went to live on a ‘farm’ where he would be happier. And we believed them, unquestioningly, until we learned otherwise. We didn’t hold it against our parents for lying to us; we may have gotten upset, but we got over it. So a couple little white lies were told, big deal! Or is it?
In a recent conversation on LinkedIn, one participant posed a question, the gist of which could be construed as a little white lie. The issue at hand was that an applicant lied about their current employment status and it was only discovered after the offer letter was sent. Apparently even the references of the supposed current employer went along with the ruse to help her gain employment.
Little White Lie or major offense? According to the application, all information should be provided or it could result in rejection of application, termination, etc. The candidate clearly lied on her application. Do we need to consider the motivation behind it? Maybe. Do we need to have another conversation about it? Maybe. Do we need to sit her down and explain that because she lied, we now have a concern regarding trust, integrity and honesty? Maybe. Are we spending a lot of extra time on a candidate who misrepresented themselves? Definitely. Is it worth it? You tell me.
People say HR lies to employees all the time. How many times have we all heard, ‘No, there won’t be any more layoffs’, ‘It’s not a major issue, we’ll address it’, or ‘I’m sure this won’t be held against you’? When, in fact, just the opposite happens. But we continue to believe HR, because they are the ‘Human’ side to the company. If we can’t trust the Human side, who can we trust?
Should the same sort of forgiveness be extended to candidates? Depends on how you look at it. If you consider lying about current employment status to be a little white lie, you may forgive. If you consider it to be a major offense, you probably won’t.
Times are still tough, not just here in Detroit, but all over the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures, some say. If you have to compromise your integrity is it worth it? Won’t you forever be known as ‘the one who lied’? Is that the legacy you want to leave, even just through the interview process?
That’s up to you. It’s YOUR integrity in question. The truth will eventually come out. Where does that leave you then? Probably unemployed again, this time with a bit of a true blemish. Unless you decide to lie again…..
Wouldn’t it be easier, and more beneficial in the long run, to just be honest from the start? Tell me the truth and you’ll have an advocate for life. Lie to me and it’s over. Your choice.
In a recent conversation on LinkedIn, one participant posed a question, the gist of which could be construed as a little white lie. The issue at hand was that an applicant lied about their current employment status and it was only discovered after the offer letter was sent. Apparently even the references of the supposed current employer went along with the ruse to help her gain employment.
Little White Lie or major offense? According to the application, all information should be provided or it could result in rejection of application, termination, etc. The candidate clearly lied on her application. Do we need to consider the motivation behind it? Maybe. Do we need to have another conversation about it? Maybe. Do we need to sit her down and explain that because she lied, we now have a concern regarding trust, integrity and honesty? Maybe. Are we spending a lot of extra time on a candidate who misrepresented themselves? Definitely. Is it worth it? You tell me.
People say HR lies to employees all the time. How many times have we all heard, ‘No, there won’t be any more layoffs’, ‘It’s not a major issue, we’ll address it’, or ‘I’m sure this won’t be held against you’? When, in fact, just the opposite happens. But we continue to believe HR, because they are the ‘Human’ side to the company. If we can’t trust the Human side, who can we trust?
Should the same sort of forgiveness be extended to candidates? Depends on how you look at it. If you consider lying about current employment status to be a little white lie, you may forgive. If you consider it to be a major offense, you probably won’t.
Times are still tough, not just here in Detroit, but all over the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures, some say. If you have to compromise your integrity is it worth it? Won’t you forever be known as ‘the one who lied’? Is that the legacy you want to leave, even just through the interview process?
That’s up to you. It’s YOUR integrity in question. The truth will eventually come out. Where does that leave you then? Probably unemployed again, this time with a bit of a true blemish. Unless you decide to lie again…..
Wouldn’t it be easier, and more beneficial in the long run, to just be honest from the start? Tell me the truth and you’ll have an advocate for life. Lie to me and it’s over. Your choice.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Just the Facts, Ma’am.
Several years ago I found myself in court dealing with a landlord who was, in my opinion, being completely unreasonable. I legally fulfilled my obligation to him legally however, he didn’t see it that way. He was insistent that I had caused him undue hardship and was breaking our contract. I certainly didn’t have an extra $12k laying around to cover his supposed losses. In the midst of freaking out, I received some great advice, ‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it’.
WHAT? WHY? I’m an emotional, passionate person! Any judge would rule in my favor when they hear my story! I have a voice that needs to be heard! This man is wronging me and I won’t stand for it!
‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it.’
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I just don’t know how to do that. Passion and emotion are part of who I am. Heck, they make me who I am! How do I separate the two? I have 12k reasons to figure this out and to figure it out quickly!
The lawyer I contacted said to write out the facts of the contract and the facts according to my paper trail (and put the paper trail in order, chrolonogically, while that’s sort of a ‘duh’, I didn’t do it). Speak clearly and enunciate the words, but don’t let the inflection in my voice rise or fall. Stay steady, stay true to the words and stand up straight.
When it was my turn to speak, I did exactly as the lawyer said. I remained calm (actually, I was shaking I was so nervous!), I spoke clearly, but most importantly I stuck to the facts. I left the emotion out of it. I did smile on occasion, and when the plaintiff wouldn’t move from the podium to I could lay out my paperwork, I asked if the bailiff could hold my purse. Had to get a little of my personality in, somehow!
The judge ruled in my favor. If I had not done my homework, my due diligence, if you will, I may not have won. I walked out of that courtroom with a strong sense of pride in knowing I did the right thing and I won. I won based on fact, not emotion. Fair and square.
Great story, but what does that have to do with your job search? The same principle applies to the job search and interview process as it did to my courtroom drama: ‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it’.
Stick to the facts of your experience, talents, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Focusing on the emotional side (I don’t have any unemployment left, I just need a job, I’m going to lose everything) will move you to the back of the line quicker than anything else! Employers don’t want to add drama or desperation to their team, they want to add productive, talented people. Focusing on what you can bring to the employer and how your background/talents can help support the core values of the company will go a long way. Remaining positive and focused shows organization, drive and ambition, and will far outweigh ‘emotion’ in the job search process.
When in doubt, take the advice of my new lawyer friend, ‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it’.
WHAT? WHY? I’m an emotional, passionate person! Any judge would rule in my favor when they hear my story! I have a voice that needs to be heard! This man is wronging me and I won’t stand for it!
‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it.’
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I just don’t know how to do that. Passion and emotion are part of who I am. Heck, they make me who I am! How do I separate the two? I have 12k reasons to figure this out and to figure it out quickly!
The lawyer I contacted said to write out the facts of the contract and the facts according to my paper trail (and put the paper trail in order, chrolonogically, while that’s sort of a ‘duh’, I didn’t do it). Speak clearly and enunciate the words, but don’t let the inflection in my voice rise or fall. Stay steady, stay true to the words and stand up straight.
When it was my turn to speak, I did exactly as the lawyer said. I remained calm (actually, I was shaking I was so nervous!), I spoke clearly, but most importantly I stuck to the facts. I left the emotion out of it. I did smile on occasion, and when the plaintiff wouldn’t move from the podium to I could lay out my paperwork, I asked if the bailiff could hold my purse. Had to get a little of my personality in, somehow!
The judge ruled in my favor. If I had not done my homework, my due diligence, if you will, I may not have won. I walked out of that courtroom with a strong sense of pride in knowing I did the right thing and I won. I won based on fact, not emotion. Fair and square.
Great story, but what does that have to do with your job search? The same principle applies to the job search and interview process as it did to my courtroom drama: ‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it’.
Stick to the facts of your experience, talents, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Focusing on the emotional side (I don’t have any unemployment left, I just need a job, I’m going to lose everything) will move you to the back of the line quicker than anything else! Employers don’t want to add drama or desperation to their team, they want to add productive, talented people. Focusing on what you can bring to the employer and how your background/talents can help support the core values of the company will go a long way. Remaining positive and focused shows organization, drive and ambition, and will far outweigh ‘emotion’ in the job search process.
When in doubt, take the advice of my new lawyer friend, ‘Just the facts, leave the emotion out of it’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)