4 ms·

I think a lot of incorrect assumptions are being made. What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification? If people who are unemployed generall

by lwhi 16y ago

I think a lot of incorrect assumptions are being made. What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification? If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications? "Second, the new people who join this pool are the newly unemployed, who are less likely to be well qualified." Why would this be true?

philwelch 16y ago
What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification?...Why would [the notion that the newly unemployed are less likely to be well qualified] be true? People who are not well qualified for their jobs tend to be the ones who lose their jobs. People who have been unemployed for a long time become increasingly desperate and apply to a lot of jobs they're not well qualified for. Well-qualified people tend to get hired quickly or at least hold onto the jobs they already have, so they spend less time being unemployed. How is this not obvious? It's hard for me to believe you're asking these questions in good faith. If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications? Judging someone's qualifications is a difficult and expensive process. Determining whether someone is currently employed or not can be done by a cursory skim of a cover letter and resume. If you have 500 cover letters and resumes for a single job opening to go through and a full day of real work to do, are you going to schedule 500 interviews or are you going to use filters? But now I'm repeating myself.
- lwhi 16y ago
  So someone who's laid off because their company fails is automatically put into the 'non-qualified' bucket? Once again, I believe people should be judged on their qualifications - not their employment status. It's not a good indicator.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    No, it's a probabilistic statement about unemployed people as a group. If 100 people all apply for one job, you can't afford to treat them as individuals. That's why you use filters. It's not perfectly fair, but on the other hand you're not entitled to five hours of a company's time just because you mailed them a resume. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Because I will always elect to treat people as individuals.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        It's a nice sentiment, to be sure...but not a realistic way to live, even if you do as much as vote or invest money. You have to treat large groups of people as large groups of you deal with them at all.
        lwhi 16y ago
        It's not just a nice sentiment though - as well as being a matter of simple courtesy, treating people based on their individual merit ensures business owners don't treat people as commodities. There's a strong business case for investing in people and treating them as valuable assets. I understand your point, but rather than sifting through 100 CVs/résumés, setting up procedures where applications are submitted using scalable processes presents a far better solution than using crude filters such as employment status. For example, if details are submitted via an electronic form, the submissions can easily be compared with a skills matrix / person specification to ensure that only relevant applications make it to the second stage of an application process.
        philwelch 16y ago
        Of course you want to treat employees as individuals. Customers, too, if you can afford it--but I'm sure that any successful consumer company can't keep your and my individual preferences in mind when designing their next product. That said, it looks like your proposed solution is still a probabilistic filter. So even by your standards you're still not treating people as individuals. Nor is it clear that your solution is any more cost-effective than the other approach.
        lwhi 16y ago
        Well, we could play tennis all day ;) I think if we were in person, we'd probably end up agreeing. Sometimes, loyalty to an originating point leads us all up paths that aren't totally worth defending. I do however, genuinely believe that there's something bad about making generalisations. We all do it, I know - but in the workplace, when and if we're in a position to make a difference, we should.

by lwhi 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification?...Why would [the notion that the newly unemployed are less likely to be well qualified] be true? People who are not well qualified for their jobs tend to be the ones who lose their jobs. People who have been unemployed for a long time become increasingly desperate and apply to a lot of jobs they're not well qualified for. Well-qualified people tend to get hired quickly or at least hold onto the jobs they already have, so they spend less time being unemployed. How is this not obvious? It's hard for me to believe you're asking these questions in good faith. If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications? Judging someone's qualifications is a difficult and expensive process. Determining whether someone is currently employed or not can be done by a cursory skim of a cover letter and resume. If you have 500 cover letters and resumes for a single job opening to go through and a full day of real work to do, are you going to schedule 500 interviews or are you going to use filters? But now I'm repeating myself.

lwhi 16y ago
So someone who's laid off because their company fails is automatically put into the 'non-qualified' bucket? Once again, I believe people should be judged on their qualifications - not their employment status. It's not a good indicator.
- philwelch 16y ago
  No, it's a probabilistic statement about unemployed people as a group. If 100 people all apply for one job, you can't afford to treat them as individuals. That's why you use filters. It's not perfectly fair, but on the other hand you're not entitled to five hours of a company's time just because you mailed them a resume. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Because I will always elect to treat people as individuals.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      It's a nice sentiment, to be sure...but not a realistic way to live, even if you do as much as vote or invest money. You have to treat large groups of people as large groups of you deal with them at all.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        It's not just a nice sentiment though - as well as being a matter of simple courtesy, treating people based on their individual merit ensures business owners don't treat people as commodities. There's a strong business case for investing in people and treating them as valuable assets. I understand your point, but rather than sifting through 100 CVs/résumés, setting up procedures where applications are submitted using scalable processes presents a far better solution than using crude filters such as employment status. For example, if details are submitted via an electronic form, the submissions can easily be compared with a skills matrix / person specification to ensure that only relevant applications make it to the second stage of an application process.
        philwelch 16y ago
        Of course you want to treat employees as individuals. Customers, too, if you can afford it--but I'm sure that any successful consumer company can't keep your and my individual preferences in mind when designing their next product. That said, it looks like your proposed solution is still a probabilistic filter. So even by your standards you're still not treating people as individuals. Nor is it clear that your solution is any more cost-effective than the other approach.
        lwhi 16y ago
        Well, we could play tennis all day ;) I think if we were in person, we'd probably end up agreeing. Sometimes, loyalty to an originating point leads us all up paths that aren't totally worth defending. I do however, genuinely believe that there's something bad about making generalisations. We all do it, I know - but in the workplace, when and if we're in a position to make a difference, we should.