Why is it easier to "find a job, when you have a job"?

[Win Place Show]

I hear this phrase bandied-about among some people I know, all the time - when it comes to just wanting to quit your current job, without having something else lined up.

I understand all the arguments for/against "today's economy", the "grass is always greener on the other side", etc., but why is it supposedly easier to find a job "when you already have a job"?

Is it because you go into the interview with an air of "I'd LIKE this job, but I don't really NEED it", and you project some sort of intangible self-confidence? Or is it simply that if your potential employer sees you as being currently employed, that somehow means you are more "marketable/hireable" than someone who's been out of work for three months?

If it's that simple, then what's to keep me from quitting my job at ABC Corp, then two weeks later, interviewing at XYZ Corp, and showing my resume' as "ABC Corp 2009 - present", and requesting 'XYZ' to "please don't contact 'ABC' - they don't know I'm interviewing"?

[thelurkinghorror]

I would think the opposite. When you have a crappy job, it's harder to find a new job. because it sucks, but not enough to look very hard. And when you're working 9 to 5 or whatever, it doesn't leave much time for a job search, and you'd rather spend your PTO watching DVDs in your underwear and eating Cheetos.

Otherwise, selection bias? If you've been out of work for more than a few weeks, I could see (not necessarily agree) that an employer may consider that less desirable than someone still employed.

YMMV, but you're supposed to be able to keep them from contacting your present employer, or at least mentioning you're looking. Many companies these days only ask if you work(ed) there. If they mention that you quit, it may be a negative mark against you.

[TriPolar]

If you have a job there are no questions about why you are unemployed. But then there are questions about why you want to leave your current job. There's no way to generalize it across existing jobs and potential jobs.

[Staggering Genius]

This might be a case of correlation without causation. If you take 50 employed people and 50 unemployed and send them on job interviews, which group do you expect to have the better success rate? Probably the employed people - employed people have, on average, better skills / experience / presentation than unemployed folks. That's what got them employed in the first place.

That said, while d doubt being out of work for a couple of weeks makes a difference, a gap of several years on your resume will definitely make it harder to find a job. Employees worry that you're not as sharp and your skills aren't as relevant as they might have once been.

[even sven]

It's a mix of things.

One is simply that if you have a job, you already have a set of connections that can help you find your next job. People are more likely to know your name, or know someone you know, or otherwise have some connection to you. You are also more likely to hear about potential opportunities in other organizations, either through water cooler gossip, keeping up with trade publications, etc. The more informed, hooked up, connected and social you are in your field, the more opportunities will come your way. And having a job is an easy way to get to that position.

I also think some undefinable "aura" is also a factor. It's like dating- people can smell desperation, and they will run like crazy from it. If you seem at all like your confidence is shaken, how can people be confident in you?

I think employed people are more likely to ask "good" interview questions that get to the meat of the company- why do I want to work here? What is in the future at this company? What challenges does your department have right now? How do I fit in? Interviewers love tough, informed questions that show that you are making a fit with the organization. Unemployed people are more likely to shy away from tough questions or ask generic ones, leaving the company unsure about where you fit in. And it's more than questions- that confidence adds up in a hundred ways, confirming that you are a desirable hire, you really do want to work with the company, and you have good ideas to bring in to it.

Finally, having a job keeps you from getting out of that unemployed funk where they stop really trying. It's tough to motivate yourself to spending the evening sending out resumes when you have all day tomorrow, and all day the next day, and all day forever to do it. But when you've just had an absolutely shitty day at work and you can't take it anymore, you are much more likely to work your "get the fuck out of there" mojo as hard as you can.

[Evil Captor]

Many employers are assholes who suspect that anyone who is unemployed is that way because they are not good at their jobs. So they won't hire people who are not employed, even in this godawful economy.

[heathen earthling]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Many employers are assholes who suspect that anyone who is unemployed is that way because they are not good at their jobs. So they won't hire people who are not employed, even in this godawful economy.

Hey, I was born unemployed!

[msmith537]

thelurkinghorror makes some good points. When you have a crappy job, it can be tough to find time off or even spare time to dedicate to a job search.

OTOH, when you are unemployed, it's easy to become desperate as time drags on and just take a crappy job just to pay the bills.

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Many employers are assholes who suspect that anyone who is unemployed is that way because they are not good at their jobs. So they won't hire people who are not employed, even in this godawful economy.

I suspect you would have trouble getting employed with that attitude in most situations.

[Corcaigh]

Originally Posted by Win Place Show

why is it supposedly easier to find a job "when you already have a job"?

It's just an expression people use to encourage the "work shy" to take any job going in order that they get a better job. Then the "work shy" person discovers they can't actually get another job and are stuck in a dead end menial job forever

At least that's been my own personal experience.

("work shy" meaning anyone who's on the dole - regardless of why they are unemployed. A coin termed during Maggie Thatcher's 'reign' in the UK)

[monstro]

If you have a job, you can afford to be choosy. When you don't have one, you'll take anything.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Contacts and credibility.

Contacts: In particular in professional fields, but can apply to just about any area, when you're employed to meet people in your field. People who might be hiring, people who know others who are hiring etc. Those contacts can see you working and can get an immediate positive impression of who you are and what you do.

Credibility: When you're employed you are perceived as a more credible candidate. Unemployed the person reading your application can interpret all sorts of reasons why you're not currently employed.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I suspect you would have trouble getting employed with that attitude in most situations.

Note to self: don't call the interviewer an asshole until after the job offer...

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by msmith537

thelurkinghorror makes some good points. When you have a crappy job, it can be tough to find time off or even spare time to dedicate to a job search.

OTOH, when you are unemployed, it's easy to become desperate as time drags on and just take a crappy job just to pay the bills.





I suspect you would have trouble getting employed with that attitude in most situations.

Not ALL employers are such assholes. Some WILL hire the unemployed. Just assume that whomever you are talking with is a non-asshole. Doesn't change the fact that the ones who won't hire the unemployed are assholes.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I suspect you would have trouble getting employed with that attitude in most situations.

Why rag on him? It's true.

[MsRobyn]

I agree with even sven's points.

One of the myriad bits of career advice that I got in a capstone class I took in college is that, if you're looking at long-term unemployment for any reason, it's a good idea to find a volunteer position for an organization you care about for which you can use your skills. The rationales for this are:

• You eliminate gaps on your resume because you can show that you were doing something productive while you were unemployed;
• You can practice the skills you have and learn some new ones;
• You make contacts and get references for future jobs; and
• You can refine your workplace etiquette and (possibly) work with a public who you need more than it needs you.

In fact, several of my classmates wound up either in the nonprofit sector working for the organizations where they volunteered, or they used the contacts they gained to find a job. So it can help.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by even sven

I also think some undefinable "aura" is also a factor. It's like dating- people can smell desperation, and they will run like crazy from it. If you seem at all like your confidence is shaken, how can people be confident in you?

While she makes other good points, I think that this might be the most important one. Desperation is very unappealing, and it will just about kill any positive social interaction, whether that interaction is dating or interviewing.

[BetsQ]

I spent a couple of years in an entry level HR job assisting the recruiters. This was years ago, so a different economy, but there was definitely a sense that currently unemployed people were suspect. The line of thinking was that either they were not good workers and had therefore been fired, or they showed bad judgment by quitting one job before having another. That doesn't mean that resumes from currently unemployed people were immediately tossed, but it was a definitely a count against them from the get go.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by BetsQ

I spent a couple of years in an entry level HR job assisting the recruiters. This was years ago, so a different economy, but there was definitely a sense that currently unemployed people were suspect. The line of thinking was that either they were not good workers and had therefore been fired, or they showed bad judgment by quitting one job before having another. That doesn't mean that resumes from currently unemployed people were immediately tossed, but it was a definitely a count against them from the get go.

And both those things can be true. Hiring managers know that when they need to lay off, unless they have seniority restrictions, they will keep their best people. Things have to get pretty bad, or you have to be getting rid of everyone in a group, before the cream is let go. Experienced managers also have dealt with the 'well, take this job and shove it' employee who leaves suddenly - usually that announcement is met with relief, not regret. So someone previously employed but not currently employed has these perception hurdles to overcome, even if they are not true in their case.

(and it's a shame, my last employer laid off 20% of its staff in 2008, including chopping through huge groups. Many people were let go who we're dead weight, but we lost good people who then struggled to find work. However, the ones who struggled least were the ones who immediately started being productive, volunteer work, training, or consulting - even if it wasn't full time or for much money.)

Employers are no different than single people. Someone else's girlfriend or boyfriend often has more appeal than someone who is single, especially if they've been single for a while. Because why a they single, are they broken in some way?

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Many employers are assholes who suspect that anyone who is unemployed is that way because they are not good at their jobs. So they won't hire people who are not employed, even in this godawful economy.

Originally Posted by msmith537

I suspect you would have trouble getting employed with that attitude in most situations.

Actually, in NYC the City Council is considering making "employment status" a protected class for hiring purposes, because "only apply if employed" ads are completely rampant here. That is - not merely preferring employed applicants which could have a number of soft-focus reasons behind it as already described above - but actually attempting to exclude the unemployed entirely from the hiring pool. Why are employers explicitly discriminating against the unemployed to the point where remedial legislation is being considered? I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with irrational bias against the unemployed on the part of employers.

For the record, I am not unemployed, and I'm not sure what I think about the proposed law. It does sugegst however, that the idea that employers have unfounded beliefs about the unemployed is a little more than just a "bad attitude."

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

Actually, in NYC the City Council is considering making "employment status" a protected class for hiring purposes, because "only apply if employed" ads are completely rampant here. That is - not merely preferring employed applicants which could have a number of soft-focus reasons behind it as already described above - but actually attempting to exclude the unemployed entirely from the hiring pool. Why are employers explicitly discriminating against the unemployed to the point where remedial legislation is being considered? I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with irrational bias against the unemployed on the part of employers.

For the record, I am not unemployed, and I'm not sure what I think about the proposed law. It does sugegst however, that the idea that employers have unfounded beliefs about the unemployed is a little more than just a "bad attitude."

I suspect it's more of a numbers and resource game. If, statistically speaking, you have a better chance of finding your eventual employee from those that are employed, and you are getting too many resumes to process, a first cut could be "get rid of anyone currently unemployed.". Not that much different than "degree required" when for most jobs a degree really isn't needed. Scanning through a bunch of resumes is time consuming and most corporations are running too lean.

The law won't do much since the cut will just be made internally rather than in advertisements. As a female IT professional, who has been to more than one interview, granted long ago, to get told by some low level tech "hr said we had to interview a woman," I feel the pain.

[filmore]

Originally Posted by Win Place Show

I hear this phrase bandied-about among some people I know, all the time - when it comes to just wanting to quit your current job, without having something else lined up.

It is a huge mistake to quit a job before having another one lined up. Of course one reason is that it might take a long while to find another job. But it looks terrible to the new employer. It makes no financial sense. It shows the applicant is impulsive and will only do things they want to do.

Even if the boss wants you to unplug toilets, don't quit. Continue to take their thousands of dollars a month, consider yourself a very overpaid janitor, polish up your resume, and start looking for another job. What's the worse that could happen? They fire you? You were going to quit anyway. At least if you stay there you will continue to get paid for longer than if you quit.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by monstro

If you have a job, you can afford to be choosy.

And there are cases in which this can be a very powerful asset. When I'm competing with kids straight out of law school for litigation fellowships, it's helpful to be able to point out to an employer that he *knows* I'm serious about wanting to work there specifically, as opposed to desperate for a job - after all, I already have a job, and I'd probably be taking a pay cut if I left.

[Kozmik]

(submits applications)

#1 If we have any openings, we'll contact you. (They don't contact you.)

-versus-

#2 If we have any openings, we'll contact you. (We have openings. You know we have openings. We know you know we have openings.)


In #1, it's applying for a job and they give you that line about them contacting you.

In #2, It's applying for a job when everyone is applying for all jobs. That is, no one is hired yet at the company site, the company is accepting applications at the hiring site, and they give you that line about them contacting you. This time, that line doesn't work. "If we have any openings, we'll contact you." means "We have openings, we'll contact you". You got them this time.

After applying at dozens of #1s, I applied at one #2 after seeing a news story on the local news/reading about it in the paper.

Apply at #2s -- you'll get hired!

[Dangerosa]

The other issue that is going on is that with high unemployment, employers feel that they can be choosy. I just saw this play out twice second hand. A company without a great reputation and with a below market pay scale turning down well qualified applicants in the hope of finding a diamond. Because with high unemployment, the diamond must be out there, looking for a lower paid job at a not great company. So rather than hiring a mere sapphire, they reported, maybe that diamond will apply this time. Diamonds are employed, and they are probably employed by a higher prestige company than yours at a higher salary, but sometimes we are a little stupid about what we want.

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Why rag on him? It's true.

From the article.

As the NELP speculates in its report, part of the incentive for businesses to discriminate against the unemployed at the outset is simply a matter of expedience, writing that “with so many applicants for every job opening, screening out the unemployed or the long-term unemployed is a convenient device for reducing the workload associated with the hiring process.”

I've read this in other articles as well.

I've had times where there were more than 100 applications for a position, and this was even in the pre-Internet days. There's just no way to interview that many people, so you wind up using some pretty arbitrary standards to eliminate people.

Depending on your job skills, being a "consultant" is one way to avoid being unemployed. For a couple of hundred dollars, you can have a professional web site made up.

I had a friend who was out of work for more than a year, but he worked with a partner going around and attempting to sell their services. It didn't make him any money, but it kept him away from the Net and helped his networking.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Why rag on him? It's true.

Yes, I've heard the stories as well. There are a couple of reasons for that someone who is unemployed may appear to be a weaker candidate.


First, there is the HR idiot perception that you must be unemployed because you weren't awesome enough to keep your job. You may not have been fired, but it must mean you weren't so above and beyong the call of duty that you were invaluable to your company. I don't particularly agree with this notion because it's basically part of a greater cult-like cheerleadery overoptimistic groupthink that perpetuates much of corporate America. It fosters a mentality that no matter what you do, it's not enough. It's not sufficient to be capable at your job, you must LOVE it as if it were your life's work. Because that's what we hire here. The best and the brightest who can work anywhere and they choose to work here because we hire the best and the brightest.

The fact is, companies want the best candidate for the job. If you have two (or many more) identical candidates (and they all appear identical after awhile), maybe being currently employed is that slight edge you need to get the offer.

You can start to lose skills and knowledge the longer you are unemployed. 6-12 months of unemployment might mean 6-12 months of not generating client contacts, not honing your skills and not learning new technologies.

[diku]

We just interviewed someone yesterday that hadn't been working since last year, and it was a knock against them. Simple reason, at least here: In Nashville right now, if you're are even a marginally decent IT person, you're employed. We've got open positions we can't fill, and so do a ton of other shops here in town.

Now, there were many other things that went into the decision, but this was at least part of it. We can't afford a mistake in hiring this position, we're expanding too quickly and we have to make sure we have the best people. But all the IT shops in town are hiring like crazy and trying to find people. The fact that this person couldn't get on anywhere in town was really suspect.

Now, if it was a situation where no one was hiring and the same resume? It wouldn't have been a strike. But there are tons of jobs available right now for IT people (hint hint) here in Nashville right now.

[heathen earthling]

diku, what if the applicant had simply chosen to be unemployed for a year? Is that actually worse?

[diku]

Originally Posted by heathen earthling

diku, what if the applicant had simply chosen to be unemployed for a year? Is that actually worse?

I'd be concerned about skill loss at bit, but no, that wouldn't be worse. Not the situation in this case, but that's not striking out from place to place.

I guess it made me wonder why he couldn't get on somewhere, and made me wonder more about his skills/work habits. If you just took a year off, that's different.

[Magiver]

People look at the employed the same way they look at the internet. If a couple of people make an opinion on the internet it gets some validity without any proof. I do it myself looking for opinions on products KNOWING the responses can be complete nonsense yet those opinions can sway my decision. I do try to look for reasons behind the opinion that validate it to some extent such as: product performed well but.... followed by some negative comment.

AAAAnyway, employers look at the employed as if their current employer knows something they don't know which obviously doesn't mean anything beyond "can't fire them this week even though they wish a Russian satellite would fall out of orbit and squash them dead".

So it SUCKS to get laid off and doubly so if the economy is tanking and triply so if you had a very narrow job category.

[SaharaTea]

I’ve been very lucky. I’ve had three different jobs since 2008 and was unemployed in between them. I was laid off from the first job, then I had to quit the second when we relocated to another city. Now I’m on my third.

None of these companies expressed concern over my being unemployed – in fact one company even got a government kickback for hiring an unemployed person. Of course it helps that I was never fired, but I was still surprised.

[bump]

Originally Posted by msmith537

It fosters a mentality that no matter what you do, it's not enough. It's not sufficient to be capable at your job, you must LOVE it as if it were your life's work. Because that's what we hire here. The best and the brightest who can work anywhere and they choose to work here because we hire the best and the brightest.

I really want to hurt people who think like that. Unfortunately, it seems to be the norm at my company and in my department. In order to get a raise and/or get promoted, it's not good enough to be extremely competent, keep the place going, etc... you have to be a total company whore and treat the job like the company's the only thing between your family and an eternity of damnation.

It's like if you're not a total yes-man and corporate stooge, you're not really considered for any advancement or reward, regardless of how good you actually are at your job.

I think the OP's question is best answered that people say that because it only seems easier- when you have a job, it's easy to take a month or two off from the job search and not feel guilty and still be able to pay the bills, etc... When you're unemployed, the clock is ticking, and every rejection HURTS in a way that they don't when you already have a job, making the search seem that much more difficult.

[SciFiSam]

Even Sven said what I wanted to say, but some of it only applies if you already have a job in your chosen field.

If you have a McJob and are applying for a professional job (even at entry-level), then, despite having previous experience and qualifications, your McJob might make you look like you have no ambition and couldn't possibly get anything else. It will also give you none of the contacts and current skills that a job in your desired field will give you, and will take time away from your jobsearch and any attempts to volunteer or retrain.

The McJob will pay your rent (or at least help towards it) but it won't necessarily help you get another job.

This doesn't apply to students working at McJobs while studying, but maybe a year afterwards.

Originally Posted by diku

I guess it made me wonder why he couldn't get on somewhere, and made me wonder more about his skills/work habits. If you just took a year off, that's different.

This is why my long period of unemployment - almost four years when my daughter was tiny - wasn't a big problem for me. The unemployment was easily explained. (I did volunteer in that time, which helped make it clear that I could make meetings on time and keep to a budget and ground-level stuff like that. Also that I could could bullshit well, which is a skill some jobs prize ).

Of course, then you might want to explain how the reason you took that time off isn't going to impact your work - you have multiple childcare back-ups, for example (even if employers aren't allowed to ask this, you know they want to know it). But that's still better than 'nobody wanted me to work for them and I'm hoping you do.'

I used to tell my unemployed students without obvious caring responsibilities to either say that they were travelling, caring for some relative or studying for something or other, whichever was closest to the truth. Anything was better than admitting they'd been simply unemployed for years.

[Rigamarole]

One word: connections.

I only got my current job because my former employer, who is a client of my current employer, recommended me for it (there was no conflict of interest there since at the previous place I was a student and they knew I would be graduating and moving on anyway).

[Voyager]

It depends. In Silicon Valley, we all know everyone else's business. There are many cases where companies shut entire groups, so being laid off in that case says nothing about how qualified you are, except that you're probably not a superstar. We're interviewing someone in this situation now, and it is not at all a problem.
If, however, you are out of work for a year, then people wonder if everyone else sees a problem. Then it hurts. Also, if you have a long record of year or two year jobs with periods of unemployment between it is really going to hurt, And if it looks like you got laid off by a company doing well and hiring, it will hurt also.
I agree about the desperation angle. Getting someone hired is a long and tedious process, much easier to stand if you are employed already.
I don't understand why people think your network of contacts ends with your employment. You'll bring your business cards home, right, and your personal collection of numbers?

[Killswitch Stunner]

They say when you stop worrying about it so much, it just happens. Bullshit. It took me years to find a good job again and I did everything I could, even stop caring for little awhile. No job just jumped up out of nowhere, I had to keep looking and waiting until I just got lucky.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by msmith537

First, there is the HR idiot perception that you must be unemployed because you weren't awesome enough to keep your job. You may not have been fired, but it must mean you weren't so above and beyong the call of duty that you were invaluable to your company. I don't particularly agree with this notion because it's basically part of a greater cult-like cheerleadery overoptimistic groupthink that perpetuates much of corporate America. It fosters a mentality that no matter what you do, it's not enough. It's not sufficient to be capable at your job, you must LOVE it as if it were your life's work. Because that's what we hire here. The best and the brightest who can work anywhere and they choose to work here because we hire the best and the brightest.

Much of corporate America is like some sort of alternate reality Lake Wobegon. I'll give you a clue guys - not everyone can hire the above average unless we let unemployment go to 50%. It always makes me laugh...."we only hire the best..." and I think "yeah, if I were the best, I wouldn't be HERE."

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

Much of corporate America is like some sort of alternate reality Lake Wobegon. I'll give you a clue guys - not everyone can hire the above average unless we let unemployment go to 50%. It always makes me laugh...."we only hire the best..." and I think "yeah, if I were the best, I wouldn't be HERE."

We only hire the best - but we pay median salary for our industry. And we wonder why we have turnover.

Or, for us - we only hire new grads from the top schools - and then we wonder why there is so much competition for them and we have to pay so much. Surely no other Silicon Valley company has thought of hiring grads from Stanford!