12 ms·

When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed

98 points by vaksel 15y ago

thematt 15y ago
This is one great thing about the software engineering profession, there's really no excuse for not being "employed". Even if you are laid off from your job and can't find work...you can always start a side company or work on a project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a resume perspective. I can't imagine a scenario in which there will ever be a gap like that in my resume.
- Luyt 15y ago
  I have a one-year gap in my resumé—I took no new freelance assignments in that year, and had three vacations abroad, two in the summer and one in the winter, and studied semiconductors and new software technologies for fun—and I decided to write it down as a 'sabbatical year'.
  - jamesbressi 15y ago
    and what is/was the response to the 'sabbatical year' on your résumé?
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      FWIW, I've been "out of work" for ~2.5 years, traveled SE Asia, lived in Japan for six months, and bicycled from Canada to Mexico. When a Google recruiter talked to me, he seemed really impressed, and not put off in the least.
      - shorttime 15y ago
        You get it, as long as you have a legitimate story and reason people who you would actually want to work for wouldn't care or even be envious. However, if you just sat around the house, went out drinking with your buddies all the time, and lived off savings - that could look bad to most people (not all, but most).
        georgieporgie 15y ago
        That's basically exactly what I did for the six months in Japan. It's amazing how people's impressions are changed by one small detail. :-)
      - jimbokun 15y ago
        "When a Google recruiter talked to me, he seemed really impressed, and not put off in the least." Did they hire you?
        georgieporgie 15y ago
        No. I told them I wasn't ready to make the sort of long-term commitment I would want at Google.
    - Luyt 15y ago
      "and what is/was the response to the 'sabbatical year' on your résumé?" I'm not sure. I don't actively mail around my résumé, since I'm employed at the moment and not looking for work. Sometimes recruiters email me, but they have never mentioned the sabbatical. Probably people just ignore it. I haven't updated the details on my résumé since 2004, shame on me ;-)
    - akronim 15y ago
      Had a year off traveling. First lot of interviews after that, everyone was very suspicious - e.g. wondering if the plan was to work for a few months then take off again. Fast forward two years when interviewing again everyone thought it was a "fantastic life experience". Basically employers saw it as a risk first time around, second time around it was proven that my intentions were good. YMMV.
      - Luyt 15y ago
        Excellent idea. I'll squeeze in a second 'sabbatical' with some years between the two.
- droz 15y ago
  Oh what bullshit. Best excuse for not being employed is that you don't need to be. If you've got the cash to enjoy a year or two off to go on a vacation, go back to school or whatever, then you ought to take it.
  - thematt 15y ago
    Why? As an employer, I'm certainly going to give more preference to the kid that was hacking away at his side project trying to build something exciting than I am to the guy who was on vacation for the last two years.
    - yeahsure 15y ago
      Personally, I believe that kid will be eager to go on vacation a few months down the line, when he has money in his pocket. If the guy who went on vacation for two years wants to get back on the game, most likely won't experience any burn out. Of course it all depends on the context, but nothing is so simple in this situation, I guess.
    - Produce 15y ago
      Economic sanctions against people who don't want their life to be work? The logic actually makes some twisted sense - "Oh, you don't want to work all the time? Well you're not getting any work at all then." Personally, I'd give preference to whoever does a better job because how a person got to that stage is none of my business. Either way, that attitude is borderline discrimination.
      - orijing 15y ago
        > Personally, I'd give preference to whoever does a better job because how a person got to that stage is none of my business The problem is, you do not know who will do a better job. The parent post is implying that the past is a signal for the future.
        Meai 15y ago
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  or work on a project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a resume perspective. I have a hard time believing that a 'project' would look anything like employment, and I think your ruse would fall apart under interview scrutiny. Mind you, the best thing you can do when you're cut is to start a business. B.S. is better than a blank stare, but not by much.
  - thematt 15y ago
    I wasn't intending for it to be a ruse. Rather if someone had enough money to float for a year and chose to dedicate their time to an open source project, that would be some great experience.
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      You stated that a project would look like perfectly valid employment experience. IMO that's a ruse. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get involved in projects, just that they shouldn't attempt to make a project look like employment if it isn't.
      - skidooer 15y ago
        > just that they shouldn't attempt to make a project look like employment if it isn't. What is the difference? I am having a little trouble drawing the distinction. - If a self-funded project is not employment, does it become employment when someone else funds it? - If you self fund a project and you are able to sell the result of your project, does that make the work leading up to the sale employment? What if you are never able to make a sale? - Do you have to be just another cog in the wheel of a big business to be considered employed? - Why is searching for a job not the same as searching for new customers (i.e. sales, a real profession)? As far as I can tell, they are all exactly the same. Where does the line get drawn?
        georgieporgie 15y ago
        What is the difference? I am having a little trouble drawing the distinction. Employment means you are employed. If you start a company, you are an employee of said company ("self-employed" is a misnomer if you have a corporation). "A project," implies that there is not a company, otherwise you would say that you started a company. "A project," does not constitute employment. You can talk about edge cases of pet projects making sales, but it doesn't change the fact that claiming a project as employment experience is unlikely to get you very far. Again, I am not saying that people should not work on projects. Just don't confuse projects with employment.
- tibbon 15y ago
  Or just take the time to beef up your Github contributions. I'd rather see someone with great contributions to the FOSS community than continuous employment at random places.
  - azakai 15y ago
    > Or just take the time to beef up your Github contributions. I'd rather see someone with great contributions to the FOSS community than continuous employment at random places. Yes, exactly. The software industry is great in that, even if you can't find a job right now, you can do actual real-world work. Contributions to significant open source projects is a huge plus for getting hired where I work, and I don't think it's just here. In fact, you can sometimes build your skills faster doing open source stuff than when employed - since you can more easily pick what to learn and what to do. But in other industries, it is really very sad - if you can't get a job, you often can't do anything at all.
minishark 15y ago
Pretty soon, we'll hear about companies who won't interview employed workers, because obviously if you're looking around while you've already got a job, it means you're not a loyal employee.
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  That's so cynical it just might catch on!
  - UnFleshedOne 15y ago
    What would be really neat if the same company had both rules (one rule at HR level and one at say management level)
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  Furthermore, it does happen somewhat already with the "job hopper" label. You've only been at bigco for 18 months and you're already interviewing someplace else? You'll have no loyalty to our company!
  - quanticle 15y ago
    Yeah, that always gets to me, for some reason. "You expect me to demonstrate loyalty to you when your corporation is not willing to demonstrate the same loyalty to me? Yeah, right." Of course, what I actually say is, "I really enjoyed my time at BigCo, and I learned a lot there, but I'm looking to broaden and deepen my skills. Your job, because of <differences x, y, and z> seems like it'd be a good fit for that."
m_myers 15y ago
Hmm. They start talking about making things illegal at just about the same point that I'm thinking this can be a great competitive advantage for anyone who will hire unemployed workers. Different points of view, I guess.
- balloot 15y ago
  You're definitely right about the competitive advantage thing. You want to create a silly blanket rule? Fine - I'll be happy to interview the guy who's a rockstar engineer but decided to travel Asia for 6 months.
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    We're talking about unemployed, not somebody who has the money to burn on traveling to Asia for 6 months.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Still unemployed! But we are talking edge cases here.
      - nradov 15y ago
        No. http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5 http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5 "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."
        dspeyer 15y ago
        This is the definition used for assembling official statistics. It is unlikely that this is used by companies setting hiring rules.
        arantius 15y ago
        Well now, that's anyone who currently has no employment, and is applying for a particular job ("actively looked for work"), isn't it?
minimax 15y ago
LinkedIn should let me tick a box that says I'm not interested in talking to any company that refuses to interview the unemployed. EDIT: I'm employed and get pinged on LinkedIn on a pretty regular basis.
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
60 Minutes had a special on companies that refuse to hire smokers, eventually some of the examples like police departments had to give it up as they weren't able to hire the best employees. In 44 states you can be fired without reason/cause.
jpitz 15y ago
Well, my little LLC provides a nice little hedge against that problem, doesn't it?
georgieporgie 15y ago
Well then, I'll be adding Sony Ericsson to the list of companies I won't support. I'll send them an email to let them know they lost a potential future customer. I vote with my dollars, and I have a very long memory for grudges.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  I'm sure their CEO will be heart-broken.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    I would genuinely like to know what you hope to convey with your comment. People shouldn't vote with their dollars? People who vote with their dollars shouldn't bother the mighty giants with their lowly opinions? Only a CEO can affect change within a company? Opinions are worthless unless they garner the attention of the CEO?
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      My point was that in most cases, a company couldn't care less what someone they've never heard of emails then and proudly declares that that company has lost their business forever. Now, this might be a difference. If you're a current or previous customer, it might warrant a reply e-mail. If you're in charge of large purchasing decisions, you might get a personal phone call. If you're Paul Graham, you might actually get a CEO to respond to you. You should absolutely vote with your wallet, you are entirely within your rights to e-mail them and complain, but I think that it's like spitting into a swimming pool - unless a lot of people do it*, change will not happen. Or unless you're, say, King Kong. I assume you are not.
      - georgieporgie 15y ago
        There was nothing proud about my email. I enjoy a diverse ecosystem, and am saddened to lose an option, but I place ethics first. My message to them may or may not be heard, and may or may not play any part in changing their approach. Your message to me, on the other hand, had a definite negative effect, and for no purpose.
hung 15y ago
Someone should compile a list of companies that won't consider unemployed applicants. Perhaps with enough bad publicity these companies will change their policies.
- eugenejen 15y ago
  No, crowd source this.
- khafra 15y ago
  I'm employed, but taking a job with a company that just throws away resumes from the currently unemployed would leave a bad taste in my mouth. I would find such a list valuable.
aridiculous 15y ago
There's a few options and I don't think outlawing it is a good one. It will continue to happen regardless, because it's particularly difficult to prove and enforce. It is ridiculous for companies to have that as an axiom. What about brilliant students? And what about people taking a break from working (I'd actually think they were more sane than a person who never takes a break from work given they both could afford it)? You could always fight back by lying on your resume and getting a smooth-talking friend as a reference. It's questionably immoral, but corporations are immoral by design. Just pretend you're the corporation of <your birth name here>. I think there's a website service for that as well, I forget the URL.
- adharmad 15y ago
  http://www.thereferencestore.com/ http://www.thereferencestore.com/
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- klbarry 15y ago
  This is easy as hell when you're friends with business people who own LLCs. For people who I know are qualified for simple jobs (receptionist, etc.), I am happy to connect them with friends who can give fake references.
- pchristensen 15y ago
  s/immoral/amoral
guynamedloren 15y ago
People who have lost jobs or have never been hired are less qualified as a group than those who are currently working, they say. People who are out of the workforce for a significant period of time may also have fallen behind in skills. This is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons. The first counter-argument that comes to mind is that people who have been "out of the workforce" may actually be more qualified than those in the workplace. Of course it varies between industries, but it's not uncommon for employees to become less inspired, less motivated, and less likely to pick up new skills over the years. People who are out of work would be wise to take the time to brush up on their trade and work on related projects between jobs, not only for personal gain, but to impress potential employers. I am amazed that companies legitimately believe that development and experience only happens in the workplace. Another lingering question in my mind: why wouldn't these companies use unemployment to their advantage? They could surely offer lower salaries to out-of-work employees (who may be desperate for work) than currently-employed employees.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  > as a group Sure, there are exceptions like you point out... but I'm guessing that applied to the groups, this is a non-ridiculous assertion.
  - palish 15y ago
    Shoudn't the goal of every technology company be to hire exceptional people?
    - matwood 15y ago
      Not really. The goal is to hire people who get the specific job done for the least amount of money. Lots of companies pay lip service to wanting exceptional people, but they pay crap and have a horrible work environment.
      - dspeyer 15y ago
        For technical support in a non-technical company, yes. But for an actual tech company, where tech is the product? A company with that philosophy will produce mediocre results and lose in the market. Certainly the trend-setting giants (MS, Google, Facebook) are seriously trying to hire the best.
Mc_Big_G 15y ago
My wife is seeing this now. I commented (under my old nick) on her great experience and inability to get a job here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=725852 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=725852 At the time I thought it was due to her not being a US citizen and others in the thread thought that perhaps it was due to location (Toledo/Detroit area which is suffering). We've since relocated to the SF Bay area and she is still not getting any calls despite having fantastic IT experience. At this point I can only attribute the lack of interest to the fact that she is unemployed and/or that she hasn't worked in 5 years due to marrying me, moving from Spain and the time it takes to get a visa/work permit. EDIT: Technically she worked for one year in Toledo at a Kohl's dept. store unloading trucks and folding clothes. This is soul-crushing for someone who was at a Director level position in IT, but she is the kind of person who will do whatever is necessary.
- palish 15y ago
  It sounds like she may not be connecting with the right people. Specifically, she might want to talk (in person, repeatedly) with managers / other decision makers. Once she's convinced one of them, then they can push internally to get her hired. Basically, the goal is to convince the correct people at a specific company that they want to hire her. This is rarely accomplished by resume carpet-bombing. It's worked for me. I landed my first job when I was still in high school (which allowed me to drop out). I landed my second job by talking with their lead designer over IRC / AIM, showing him how enthusiastic I was, explaining the kinds of things I could do, etc, until he finally gave me a chance to prove it. I should probably mention that both times, I never brought up money until they did. Good luck!
  - gaius 15y ago
    Absolutely correct. The savvy candidate has always known, you need to somehow do an end-run around HR and get the attention of people who will be your cow-orkers or your manager. Get them to submit your CV via internal channels, and chase it up, acting as your sponsor from within. Industry events, participating in an online/offline community, "networking" are the way to do this.
- 15y ago
habitatforus 15y ago
I got my current job because everyone I was competing against was unemployed. Companies treat it like the kiss of death. Friends of mine who have been unemployed fr less than 60 days find work. More that 60 days stay unemployed for months and months.
- troels 15y ago
  So, the friend which gets hired straight away gets hired straight away, whereas those who don't don't. ;)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
leelin 15y ago
Has anyone ever tried to hack this by claiming the unemployed time was "spending the last N months working on various startups or co-founder searches" which unfortunately failed for reasons X,Y,Z?
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Kind of. I (truthfully) told people that for my 3-month window of (voluntary) unemployment I was working on projects of interest and focusing on deepening my skillsets. All 100% true. I got a great job last week.
dkarl 15y ago
In a way, my company (let's call it MegaCorp) discriminates in favor of the unemployed, though it's really just our own soon-to-be-unemployed. We have to get special approval to hire outside the company, because our corporate masters desperately want us to hire from our "surplus" pool, the pool of people who are being laid off from their current positions, so we can report fewer layoffs. Apparently, we care so much about our layoff numbers that we go out of our way to retain even the employees that topped somebody's "least essential" list. We occasionally see strong candidates from that pool, however, so we do pay attention to their resumes. Personally, I was unemployed for over a year and am very, very aware of how much easier it is to look for a job when I have a job. I and other people I know who have been in that situation don't look at unemployed candidates as damaged goods. We look at them as potential victims (bwahahahaha!) who, shall we say, will negotiate from a much weaker position and then come to work much more eager to please! No, seriously, we look at them the same way we look at people who are unemployed. There are lots of well-paid losers and plenty of people who are out of work because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
spudlyo 15y ago
As someone who has been looking at resumes all week, I don't have a problem with this. This just means there are more excellent candidates for me to choose from. I tend to prefer candidates that are currently unemployed, because I feel they have something to prove and will work hard to make a good impression. I'm dubious about folks who are already employed, I don't now if they're for real, or if they're just using me to get a raise at their current job.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
I'm always curious about what people who are members of the 'long term unemployed' are doing while unemployed. There are big chunks of people who are unemployed with two strikes against them, they are under-educated and they are single parents. This double whammy kills you because if you aren't working you can't pay for day care, if you can't pay for day care then a big chunk of your time is taken up in providing day care (depending on the age of your children). So if you pick out the 'edge' case where you have: two work capable parents both with college degrees fewer than four children (all over the age of 5) There is an "easy" answer, upgrade your skills and/or education, get a job. I know a couple in Texas who did exactly that, the husband, went to community college, transferred to the state university system, and they are now 3 years unemployed and 1 year away from being a newly minted EE with a paid summer internship under their belt. They have recruiters talking to them at school but on my and others advice they are going to finish the degree before actually taking anyone up on those offers. I've talked with people for whom 'job hunting' wasn't an issue, until it was, and they only realized a year later that their previous experience really wasn't all that applicable to anything really.
- HedgeMage 15y ago
  Hi, I'm under-educated and a single parent of a special needs child. I was a stay-at-home mom (my son was 4) when a looming divorce prompted me to re-enter the workforce. Nobody wanted to hire me, so I started a company. Now (almost 4 years later) not only am I employable, but I get 2-5 contacts from people who want to talk about hiring me per month. I'm really tired of hearing the "poor single mom" drum beaten. I did it, despite my child's special needs, despite a medical condition that limits my employment options, and plenty of other challenges other people can do it to. If it's hard to figure out, and I just haven't noticed that it is, tell me and I'll write a book. Putting myself in an employer's shoes, I'd be leery of hiring anyone who's been long-term unemployed. What does one do with the time? When I couldn't find a job, I created one. While not everyone is predisposed to entrepreneurship, surely a few months in to not finding employment, any sufficiently determined person would at least try it. I'm not saying they'll all succeed -- but I'm not sure you have to succeed. When you start your own venture, you go from being unemployed to being employed, and that solves the original problem -- you are no longer a member of the long-term unemployed. I think its fair to say that someone who's had no break in their unemployment more than a year (assuming they aren't a full-time student, seriously ill, a stay-at-home parent, etc.) probably has something wrong with how they approach becoming employed, and a lot of those somethings would also negatively impact their performance as an employee. It's fine to be skeptical, and it's not a slight against the under-educated or single parents.
j_baker 15y ago
It really seems that software development isn't immune to this effect. How many times have you heard people say "Good programmers are never on the market"? It just bothers me that people don't get that sometimes bad things happen to otherwise qualified people.
- ahi 15y ago
  Always have other opportunities lined up. I could get canned tomorrow and be working a new job within a week. I try to maintain two or three positions ready and waiting for me at all times. We are programmers of fortune. My employer's crappy ERP project inspires many emotions; loyalty is not one of them.
chaser6077 15y ago
Has anyone here worked on a start-up for a few years which did not become a success and then successfully transitioned back into the workforce? If so did you have any trouble transitioning socially(i was a sole founder) and or keeping the jobs you landed?
rsheridan6 15y ago
If some company chooses to hire only job hoppers, that means ever hire they make takes a worker from another company, so a job vacancy is created, unless the other company chooses to eliminate the position instead of hiring a new employee. Net effect on the unemployed: nil. If a campaign against companies that refuse to hire the unemployed takes off, the most likely result is that they'll continue to do so quietly. Net effect on the unemployed: more time wasted applying to jobs that they never had a chance of getting. FWIW, I think hiring only job hoppers is idiotic.
geekzgalore 15y ago
Being a woman in IT/software development and unemployed would count as two strikes then..
- HedgeMage 15y ago
  Why do you think that?
  - geekzgalore 15y ago
    I have personally experienced a slight bias towards women (esp. married women having children). Throw in unemployment, and the picture is doubly glum.

98 points by vaksel 15y ago

This is one great thing about the software engineering profession, there's really no excuse for not being "employed". Even if you are laid off from your job and can't find work...you can always start a side company or work on a project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a resume perspective. I can't imagine a scenario in which there will ever be a gap like that in my resume.

Luyt 15y ago
I have a one-year gap in my resumé—I took no new freelance assignments in that year, and had three vacations abroad, two in the summer and one in the winter, and studied semiconductors and new software technologies for fun—and I decided to write it down as a 'sabbatical year'.
- jamesbressi 15y ago
  and what is/was the response to the 'sabbatical year' on your résumé?
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    FWIW, I've been "out of work" for ~2.5 years, traveled SE Asia, lived in Japan for six months, and bicycled from Canada to Mexico. When a Google recruiter talked to me, he seemed really impressed, and not put off in the least.
    - shorttime 15y ago
      You get it, as long as you have a legitimate story and reason people who you would actually want to work for wouldn't care or even be envious. However, if you just sat around the house, went out drinking with your buddies all the time, and lived off savings - that could look bad to most people (not all, but most).
      - georgieporgie 15y ago
        That's basically exactly what I did for the six months in Japan. It's amazing how people's impressions are changed by one small detail. :-)
    - jimbokun 15y ago
      "When a Google recruiter talked to me, he seemed really impressed, and not put off in the least." Did they hire you?
      - georgieporgie 15y ago
        No. I told them I wasn't ready to make the sort of long-term commitment I would want at Google.
  - Luyt 15y ago
    "and what is/was the response to the 'sabbatical year' on your résumé?" I'm not sure. I don't actively mail around my résumé, since I'm employed at the moment and not looking for work. Sometimes recruiters email me, but they have never mentioned the sabbatical. Probably people just ignore it. I haven't updated the details on my résumé since 2004, shame on me ;-)
  - akronim 15y ago
    Had a year off traveling. First lot of interviews after that, everyone was very suspicious - e.g. wondering if the plan was to work for a few months then take off again. Fast forward two years when interviewing again everyone thought it was a "fantastic life experience". Basically employers saw it as a risk first time around, second time around it was proven that my intentions were good. YMMV.
    - Luyt 15y ago
      Excellent idea. I'll squeeze in a second 'sabbatical' with some years between the two.
droz 15y ago
Oh what bullshit. Best excuse for not being employed is that you don't need to be. If you've got the cash to enjoy a year or two off to go on a vacation, go back to school or whatever, then you ought to take it.
- thematt 15y ago
  Why? As an employer, I'm certainly going to give more preference to the kid that was hacking away at his side project trying to build something exciting than I am to the guy who was on vacation for the last two years.
  - yeahsure 15y ago
    Personally, I believe that kid will be eager to go on vacation a few months down the line, when he has money in his pocket. If the guy who went on vacation for two years wants to get back on the game, most likely won't experience any burn out. Of course it all depends on the context, but nothing is so simple in this situation, I guess.
  - Produce 15y ago
    Economic sanctions against people who don't want their life to be work? The logic actually makes some twisted sense - "Oh, you don't want to work all the time? Well you're not getting any work at all then." Personally, I'd give preference to whoever does a better job because how a person got to that stage is none of my business. Either way, that attitude is borderline discrimination.
    - orijing 15y ago
      > Personally, I'd give preference to whoever does a better job because how a person got to that stage is none of my business The problem is, you do not know who will do a better job. The parent post is implying that the past is a signal for the future.
      - Meai 15y ago
georgieporgie 15y ago
or work on a project. Those look like perfectly valid employment from a resume perspective. I have a hard time believing that a 'project' would look anything like employment, and I think your ruse would fall apart under interview scrutiny. Mind you, the best thing you can do when you're cut is to start a business. B.S. is better than a blank stare, but not by much.
- thematt 15y ago
  I wasn't intending for it to be a ruse. Rather if someone had enough money to float for a year and chose to dedicate their time to an open source project, that would be some great experience.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    You stated that a project would look like perfectly valid employment experience. IMO that's a ruse. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get involved in projects, just that they shouldn't attempt to make a project look like employment if it isn't.
    - skidooer 15y ago
      > just that they shouldn't attempt to make a project look like employment if it isn't. What is the difference? I am having a little trouble drawing the distinction. - If a self-funded project is not employment, does it become employment when someone else funds it? - If you self fund a project and you are able to sell the result of your project, does that make the work leading up to the sale employment? What if you are never able to make a sale? - Do you have to be just another cog in the wheel of a big business to be considered employed? - Why is searching for a job not the same as searching for new customers (i.e. sales, a real profession)? As far as I can tell, they are all exactly the same. Where does the line get drawn?
      - georgieporgie 15y ago
        What is the difference? I am having a little trouble drawing the distinction. Employment means you are employed. If you start a company, you are an employee of said company ("self-employed" is a misnomer if you have a corporation). "A project," implies that there is not a company, otherwise you would say that you started a company. "A project," does not constitute employment. You can talk about edge cases of pet projects making sales, but it doesn't change the fact that claiming a project as employment experience is unlikely to get you very far. Again, I am not saying that people should not work on projects. Just don't confuse projects with employment.
tibbon 15y ago
Or just take the time to beef up your Github contributions. I'd rather see someone with great contributions to the FOSS community than continuous employment at random places.
- azakai 15y ago
  > Or just take the time to beef up your Github contributions. I'd rather see someone with great contributions to the FOSS community than continuous employment at random places. Yes, exactly. The software industry is great in that, even if you can't find a job right now, you can do actual real-world work. Contributions to significant open source projects is a huge plus for getting hired where I work, and I don't think it's just here. In fact, you can sometimes build your skills faster doing open source stuff than when employed - since you can more easily pick what to learn and what to do. But in other industries, it is really very sad - if you can't get a job, you often can't do anything at all.

minishark 15y ago

Pretty soon, we'll hear about companies who won't interview employed workers, because obviously if you're looking around while you've already got a job, it means you're not a loyal employee.

mgkimsal 15y ago
That's so cynical it just might catch on!
- UnFleshedOne 15y ago
  What would be really neat if the same company had both rules (one rule at HR level and one at say management level)
mgkimsal 15y ago
Furthermore, it does happen somewhat already with the "job hopper" label. You've only been at bigco for 18 months and you're already interviewing someplace else? You'll have no loyalty to our company!
- quanticle 15y ago
  Yeah, that always gets to me, for some reason. "You expect me to demonstrate loyalty to you when your corporation is not willing to demonstrate the same loyalty to me? Yeah, right." Of course, what I actually say is, "I really enjoyed my time at BigCo, and I learned a lot there, but I'm looking to broaden and deepen my skills. Your job, because of <differences x, y, and z> seems like it'd be a good fit for that."

m_myers 15y ago

Hmm. They start talking about making things illegal at just about the same point that I'm thinking this can be a great competitive advantage for anyone who will hire unemployed workers. Different points of view, I guess.

balloot 15y ago
You're definitely right about the competitive advantage thing. You want to create a silly blanket rule? Fine - I'll be happy to interview the guy who's a rockstar engineer but decided to travel Asia for 6 months.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  We're talking about unemployed, not somebody who has the money to burn on traveling to Asia for 6 months.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Still unemployed! But we are talking edge cases here.
    - nradov 15y ago
      No. http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5 http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5 "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."
      - dspeyer 15y ago
        This is the definition used for assembling official statistics. It is unlikely that this is used by companies setting hiring rules.
      - arantius 15y ago
        Well now, that's anyone who currently has no employment, and is applying for a particular job ("actively looked for work"), isn't it?

minimax 15y ago

LinkedIn should let me tick a box that says I'm not interested in talking to any company that refuses to interview the unemployed. EDIT: I'm employed and get pinged on LinkedIn on a pretty regular basis.

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

60 Minutes had a special on companies that refuse to hire smokers, eventually some of the examples like police departments had to give it up as they weren't able to hire the best employees. In 44 states you can be fired without reason/cause.

jpitz 15y ago

Well, my little LLC provides a nice little hedge against that problem, doesn't it?

georgieporgie 15y ago

Well then, I'll be adding Sony Ericsson to the list of companies I won't support. I'll send them an email to let them know they lost a potential future customer. I vote with my dollars, and I have a very long memory for grudges.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
I'm sure their CEO will be heart-broken.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  I would genuinely like to know what you hope to convey with your comment. People shouldn't vote with their dollars? People who vote with their dollars shouldn't bother the mighty giants with their lowly opinions? Only a CEO can affect change within a company? Opinions are worthless unless they garner the attention of the CEO?
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    My point was that in most cases, a company couldn't care less what someone they've never heard of emails then and proudly declares that that company has lost their business forever. Now, this might be a difference. If you're a current or previous customer, it might warrant a reply e-mail. If you're in charge of large purchasing decisions, you might get a personal phone call. If you're Paul Graham, you might actually get a CEO to respond to you. You should absolutely vote with your wallet, you are entirely within your rights to e-mail them and complain, but I think that it's like spitting into a swimming pool - unless a lot of people do it*, change will not happen. Or unless you're, say, King Kong. I assume you are not.
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      There was nothing proud about my email. I enjoy a diverse ecosystem, and am saddened to lose an option, but I place ethics first. My message to them may or may not be heard, and may or may not play any part in changing their approach. Your message to me, on the other hand, had a definite negative effect, and for no purpose.

hung 15y ago

Someone should compile a list of companies that won't consider unemployed applicants. Perhaps with enough bad publicity these companies will change their policies.

eugenejen 15y ago
No, crowd source this.
khafra 15y ago
I'm employed, but taking a job with a company that just throws away resumes from the currently unemployed would leave a bad taste in my mouth. I would find such a list valuable.

aridiculous 15y ago

There's a few options and I don't think outlawing it is a good one. It will continue to happen regardless, because it's particularly difficult to prove and enforce. It is ridiculous for companies to have that as an axiom. What about brilliant students? And what about people taking a break from working (I'd actually think they were more sane than a person who never takes a break from work given they both could afford it)? You could always fight back by lying on your resume and getting a smooth-talking friend as a reference. It's questionably immoral, but corporations are immoral by design. Just pretend you're the corporation of <your birth name here>. I think there's a website service for that as well, I forget the URL.

adharmad 15y ago
http://www.thereferencestore.com/ http://www.thereferencestore.com/
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
klbarry 15y ago
This is easy as hell when you're friends with business people who own LLCs. For people who I know are qualified for simple jobs (receptionist, etc.), I am happy to connect them with friends who can give fake references.
pchristensen 15y ago
s/immoral/amoral

guynamedloren 15y ago

People who have lost jobs or have never been hired are less qualified as a group than those who are currently working, they say. People who are out of the workforce for a significant period of time may also have fallen behind in skills. This is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons. The first counter-argument that comes to mind is that people who have been "out of the workforce" may actually be more qualified than those in the workplace. Of course it varies between industries, but it's not uncommon for employees to become less inspired, less motivated, and less likely to pick up new skills over the years. People who are out of work would be wise to take the time to brush up on their trade and work on related projects between jobs, not only for personal gain, but to impress potential employers. I am amazed that companies legitimately believe that development and experience only happens in the workplace. Another lingering question in my mind: why wouldn't these companies use unemployment to their advantage? They could surely offer lower salaries to out-of-work employees (who may be desperate for work) than currently-employed employees.

monochromatic 15y ago
> as a group Sure, there are exceptions like you point out... but I'm guessing that applied to the groups, this is a non-ridiculous assertion.
- palish 15y ago
  Shoudn't the goal of every technology company be to hire exceptional people?
  - matwood 15y ago
    Not really. The goal is to hire people who get the specific job done for the least amount of money. Lots of companies pay lip service to wanting exceptional people, but they pay crap and have a horrible work environment.
    - dspeyer 15y ago
      For technical support in a non-technical company, yes. But for an actual tech company, where tech is the product? A company with that philosophy will produce mediocre results and lose in the market. Certainly the trend-setting giants (MS, Google, Facebook) are seriously trying to hire the best.

Mc_Big_G 15y ago

My wife is seeing this now. I commented (under my old nick) on her great experience and inability to get a job here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=725852 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=725852 At the time I thought it was due to her not being a US citizen and others in the thread thought that perhaps it was due to location (Toledo/Detroit area which is suffering). We've since relocated to the SF Bay area and she is still not getting any calls despite having fantastic IT experience. At this point I can only attribute the lack of interest to the fact that she is unemployed and/or that she hasn't worked in 5 years due to marrying me, moving from Spain and the time it takes to get a visa/work permit. EDIT: Technically she worked for one year in Toledo at a Kohl's dept. store unloading trucks and folding clothes. This is soul-crushing for someone who was at a Director level position in IT, but she is the kind of person who will do whatever is necessary.

palish 15y ago
It sounds like she may not be connecting with the right people. Specifically, she might want to talk (in person, repeatedly) with managers / other decision makers. Once she's convinced one of them, then they can push internally to get her hired. Basically, the goal is to convince the correct people at a specific company that they want to hire her. This is rarely accomplished by resume carpet-bombing. It's worked for me. I landed my first job when I was still in high school (which allowed me to drop out). I landed my second job by talking with their lead designer over IRC / AIM, showing him how enthusiastic I was, explaining the kinds of things I could do, etc, until he finally gave me a chance to prove it. I should probably mention that both times, I never brought up money until they did. Good luck!
- gaius 15y ago
  Absolutely correct. The savvy candidate has always known, you need to somehow do an end-run around HR and get the attention of people who will be your cow-orkers or your manager. Get them to submit your CV via internal channels, and chase it up, acting as your sponsor from within. Industry events, participating in an online/offline community, "networking" are the way to do this.
15y ago

habitatforus 15y ago

I got my current job because everyone I was competing against was unemployed. Companies treat it like the kiss of death. Friends of mine who have been unemployed fr less than 60 days find work. More that 60 days stay unemployed for months and months.

troels 15y ago
So, the friend which gets hired straight away gets hired straight away, whereas those who don't don't. ;)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

leelin 15y ago

Has anyone ever tried to hack this by claiming the unemployed time was "spending the last N months working on various startups or co-founder searches" which unfortunately failed for reasons X,Y,Z?

mattdeboard 15y ago
Kind of. I (truthfully) told people that for my 3-month window of (voluntary) unemployment I was working on projects of interest and focusing on deepening my skillsets. All 100% true. I got a great job last week.

dkarl 15y ago

In a way, my company (let's call it MegaCorp) discriminates in favor of the unemployed, though it's really just our own soon-to-be-unemployed. We have to get special approval to hire outside the company, because our corporate masters desperately want us to hire from our "surplus" pool, the pool of people who are being laid off from their current positions, so we can report fewer layoffs. Apparently, we care so much about our layoff numbers that we go out of our way to retain even the employees that topped somebody's "least essential" list. We occasionally see strong candidates from that pool, however, so we do pay attention to their resumes. Personally, I was unemployed for over a year and am very, very aware of how much easier it is to look for a job when I have a job. I and other people I know who have been in that situation don't look at unemployed candidates as damaged goods. We look at them as potential victims (bwahahahaha!) who, shall we say, will negotiate from a much weaker position and then come to work much more eager to please! No, seriously, we look at them the same way we look at people who are unemployed. There are lots of well-paid losers and plenty of people who are out of work because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

spudlyo 15y ago

As someone who has been looking at resumes all week, I don't have a problem with this. This just means there are more excellent candidates for me to choose from. I tend to prefer candidates that are currently unemployed, because I feel they have something to prove and will work hard to make a good impression. I'm dubious about folks who are already employed, I don't now if they're for real, or if they're just using me to get a raise at their current job.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

I'm always curious about what people who are members of the 'long term unemployed' are doing while unemployed. There are big chunks of people who are unemployed with two strikes against them, they are under-educated and they are single parents. This double whammy kills you because if you aren't working you can't pay for day care, if you can't pay for day care then a big chunk of your time is taken up in providing day care (depending on the age of your children). So if you pick out the 'edge' case where you have: two work capable parents both with college degrees fewer than four children (all over the age of 5) There is an "easy" answer, upgrade your skills and/or education, get a job. I know a couple in Texas who did exactly that, the husband, went to community college, transferred to the state university system, and they are now 3 years unemployed and 1 year away from being a newly minted EE with a paid summer internship under their belt. They have recruiters talking to them at school but on my and others advice they are going to finish the degree before actually taking anyone up on those offers. I've talked with people for whom 'job hunting' wasn't an issue, until it was, and they only realized a year later that their previous experience really wasn't all that applicable to anything really.

HedgeMage 15y ago
Hi, I'm under-educated and a single parent of a special needs child. I was a stay-at-home mom (my son was 4) when a looming divorce prompted me to re-enter the workforce. Nobody wanted to hire me, so I started a company. Now (almost 4 years later) not only am I employable, but I get 2-5 contacts from people who want to talk about hiring me per month. I'm really tired of hearing the "poor single mom" drum beaten. I did it, despite my child's special needs, despite a medical condition that limits my employment options, and plenty of other challenges other people can do it to. If it's hard to figure out, and I just haven't noticed that it is, tell me and I'll write a book. Putting myself in an employer's shoes, I'd be leery of hiring anyone who's been long-term unemployed. What does one do with the time? When I couldn't find a job, I created one. While not everyone is predisposed to entrepreneurship, surely a few months in to not finding employment, any sufficiently determined person would at least try it. I'm not saying they'll all succeed -- but I'm not sure you have to succeed. When you start your own venture, you go from being unemployed to being employed, and that solves the original problem -- you are no longer a member of the long-term unemployed. I think its fair to say that someone who's had no break in their unemployment more than a year (assuming they aren't a full-time student, seriously ill, a stay-at-home parent, etc.) probably has something wrong with how they approach becoming employed, and a lot of those somethings would also negatively impact their performance as an employee. It's fine to be skeptical, and it's not a slight against the under-educated or single parents.

j_baker 15y ago

It really seems that software development isn't immune to this effect. How many times have you heard people say "Good programmers are never on the market"? It just bothers me that people don't get that sometimes bad things happen to otherwise qualified people.

ahi 15y ago
Always have other opportunities lined up. I could get canned tomorrow and be working a new job within a week. I try to maintain two or three positions ready and waiting for me at all times. We are programmers of fortune. My employer's crappy ERP project inspires many emotions; loyalty is not one of them.

chaser6077 15y ago

Has anyone here worked on a start-up for a few years which did not become a success and then successfully transitioned back into the workforce? If so did you have any trouble transitioning socially(i was a sole founder) and or keeping the jobs you landed?

rsheridan6 15y ago

If some company chooses to hire only job hoppers, that means ever hire they make takes a worker from another company, so a job vacancy is created, unless the other company chooses to eliminate the position instead of hiring a new employee. Net effect on the unemployed: nil. If a campaign against companies that refuse to hire the unemployed takes off, the most likely result is that they'll continue to do so quietly. Net effect on the unemployed: more time wasted applying to jobs that they never had a chance of getting. FWIW, I think hiring only job hoppers is idiotic.

geekzgalore 15y ago

Being a woman in IT/software development and unemployed would count as two strikes then..

HedgeMage 15y ago
Why do you think that?
- geekzgalore 15y ago
  I have personally experienced a slight bias towards women (esp. married women having children). Throw in unemployment, and the picture is doubly glum.