Oddly enough, I’ve had fantastic luck with that. I wouldn’t make things up, but I’ve sometimes listed a real “hobbies” section on my resume - it can make for a good conversation during an interview. In fact, I’m convinced that it actually tipped the balance in my favor on one job - I was actually walking out the door when one of my interviewers asked me about a hobby I’d listed, and then we spent a few minutes talking about it.
I haven’t done this since my first year of law school, though - it does take away from space you could devote to real professional accomplishments.
All they have to do is make a personal call to your supposed employer and ask to speak to you. If the response is anything like “I’m sorry-She/he isn’t in our employ.”, you are caught.
You only give them your cell phone number and ask them to call that.
Really, I’m not advocating lying but this is a trivial thing to do. It’s exactly what happens when you are actually employed and they are looking to poach you.
If they suspect you are lying and are looking to catch you, they can of course. But if they suspect you are lying they won’t bother, they’ll just bin your resume anyway.
I’m still not seeing the advantage to the company in hiring away employees of other organizations who are “happy” in their jobs. If someone who professes to be happy in their job is enticed elsewhere by an increase in salary, they’re going to be the first to hit the door when someone else offers an increase in salary. Great, you’re paying extra for someone with loyalty only to their pocketbook, someone who’s bound to leave you in the lurch once the going gets anywhere near rough. (“Bill, the boss needs the quarterly reports tomorrow.” “Actually, Bob, fuck off, Company Z offered me $5K more and I don’t feel like doing those reports. Good luck finding someone else by 9 am tomorrow who can run them for you.”)
Or, as Matt Murphy of The Super Friendz once sang,
You’d trust a woman who cheats her boyfriend?
You’d trust a friend who betrays a friend?
Well Duke, the other side of the coin is that perhaps an unemployed applicant is not simply an innocent victim of a bad economy–maybe they were fired because they did a shitty job. The employer weighs these two things (among others), and many have apparently concluded to go the “employed only need apply” route.
Doesn’t stop women from attempting to poach other women’s boyfriends and husbands, so why would that kind of logic stop companies from thinking that poaching other company’s employees is teh shitz? People don’t tend to think past the immediate gratification.
The “myth” of the superstar is pretty ingrained in a lot of professions. I have seen it in everything from law to banking to sports. There are industries where stars do exist. Where a single high performer can provide enough of an advantage to give a firm a competitive advantage over other firms.
But the notion that you would limit your search for Asst restaurant manager to try and scalp a superstar seems kind of rediculous.
There’s no implied loyalty in an employer/employee relationship; it’s nothing at all like personal relationships. The employer will toss you out if it’s in their best interest; you leave if it’s in your best interest. That’s how it works.
I don’t see the logic of automatically disqualifying people who are unemployed (especially in this economy!), but I do understand the temptation. Have you done any hiring? There is a huge mass of borderline unemployable people with personality and/or honesty issues that make them incredibly troublesome potential employees. These are also the people who will go out and apply for every single job, and lie on their resume, and make you have to have questions in your interview to screen them out. This process is time-consuming and expensive. Screening out the unemployed will catch a lot of these people. Short sighted? Yes, but it’s a solution to a real problem.
It’s simple, as a staffing company, to sell the idea that every good employee has been picked up by someone and that businesses need recruiters to lure away these people. It’s not true, but I’m sure it sells services. But there is a nugget of truth to the fact that there is a tendency for someone who is currently gainfully employed and happy to be more likely to be a good employee.
Conversation in 1994 with an obsessed workaholic manager;
Him: (Tells me I need to work longer hours, harder, blah, blah blah for the same money)
Me: (Not going to happen)
Him: (something something something bullshit)
Me: Then I guess I’ll be getting another job.
Him: Where is your loyalty to this company???
Me: Where is this company’s loyalty to me?
Him: (long pause) :smack:
Him: Oh…I guess you’re right.
I can technically yell ‘worthless cunt’ at every old woman in a wheelchair I see. However that makes me an asshole, and I don’t do it. Does that mean I want state control of all speech, just because I oppose a few assholish behaviors.
And employers can, within limits, do what they want. That doesn’t mean people should passively put up with it.
Your assumption that only the currently employed are the best employees is silly. I know several employed people who are totally incompetent.
If you create a system where once someone loses their job, it becomes almost impossible to find another, you are creating a system that is going to lead to a lot of unnecessary pain, hardship and potential crime. So people can and do oppose it.
Jeebus guys, are you and RR talking at cross-purposes or what? He’s not denying that it’s assholish; he’s saying it’s within their rights; he’s not assuming that the currently employed are the best, but saying that corporations are within their rights to make that assumption.
Most current HR department will only confrm that you were employed and the dates of the employment and will not discuss any specifics about you as a person or worker as any negative information they release may open them up to liability for a civil suit from the employee for defamation.
Of course they are. They do not conflict, yet RR is presenting the legality of the situation as though it were a sufficient rebuttal to the objections raised in the thread.
I’m not talking about the difference between an unemployed and an employed person, more about the difference between a “happy” (their words) and an unhappy employee.
Apparently this company wants “happy” employees of other companies, which begs the question: If an employee is happy at their current position, why would they leave? Since “salary” is one of the major factors in employee happiness, you’d have to think happy employees would be happy with their pay, too. So this company would theoretically have to offer a lot more cash to pry the happy employees away. You’d think that if a company wanted the currently-employed, they’d want the unhappy or neutral: the people who are underpaid and don’t like it, the people who want to succeed but get bogged down by paperwork or office politics or other crap.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting currently-employed. But I think that a company that thinks it will have an easy time snagging “happy” employees from rival companies probably has more money than sense.
And you actually expect the prospective employer not to at least try to find out whether you worked where you claimed to work by using the method I mentioned before?
The only way this makes sense is if the “no unemployed allowed” companies figure that they can hire 5 “superstars” to do the work of, say, 8 “regular” employees. Maybe then the higher rates to the “superstars” work out.
Hasn’t that been an overarching trend in business anyway over the last several decades? “If my enterprise works great with 100 employees, maybe I can pare it down to 90 with barely any loss of production.”
Then when the 90-employee enterprise stabilizes, it’s pared down to 75, then 60, and so on.
