3 ms·

It stands to reason that if the bias against long term unemployed workers is strong enough there will exist a surplus of highly qualified workers who have been

It stands to reason that if the bias against long term unemployed workers is strong enough there will exist a surplus of highly qualified workers who have been out of work for 6 months or more. Everything else being equal, the long term unemployed could be hired at lower than market wages for their skill level. A smart company could pick up qualified workers pretty cheaply by ignoring unemployment length right now.

pekk 13y ago
That would be true if hiring were generally rational with an objective of finding qualified workers.
sokoloff 13y ago
I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST. I expect a technical employee (myself included) to bring to the company some multiple of their salary each year. With that in mind, I'm far more interested in the possible upside of a good employee than in reducing a portion of the costs of a possibly cheaper employee. (I'm generally "on the hook" for some amount of constant costs: 401-k match, insurance, building occupancy costs, free food/drinks, management attention/overhead needed, etc, so a 25% lower salary might only net me a 15% lower overall cost.) Long term unemployed, excessive job hopping without good explanation, long stints of employment without promotion or other evidence of growth are all red flags. They're not fatal in isolation, but believe me, they get scrutiny by hiring managers who are paying attention. Someone involuntarily out of work in a tech field for 6 months is likely to, at a minimum, interview poorly. (Otherwise, they'd likely land somewhere inside of 2 months.) For your plan to work, one has to be willing to low-ball a candidate who likely just interviewed poorly with you. I don't think the risk-reward works out, which is why I'm probably part of the problem, but willingly so. Candidates that interview poorly get a polite rejection, not a lowball offer.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  But you are not competing against competitors who might steal them away for -24%. You are competing against Walmart: -75% salary, -100% fringe benefits.
  - sokoloff 13y ago
    Still misses the value side, but even on the cost side, that's just a recipe for getting someone back in the workforce for 18 months until they re-establish their credibility and confidence and jump ship to another firm for what will be a 300% raise for them. I wouldn't blame them in the least; they'd be an idiot to keep working for me under those circumstances. Hugely helpful for the employee, but an "adequate, not spectacular" employee who works for me for 18 months isn't helping my company much overall. The first 6 months is straight negative; the next 6 is break even, and the next 6 pay back the hole we dug in the first 6. So, good for them and hopefully break even for me, except I lost 18 months of "tempo" with one of my employee spots. For a cash-strapped company, this plan might make more sense. For a profitable and growing later-stage company, I think this makes much less sense. (I work a much later stage company, so that surely colors my opinion and biases here.)
- tsotha 13y ago
  >I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST. Heh heh. Well, sure. It isn't your money.

pekk 13y ago

That would be true if hiring were generally rational with an objective of finding qualified workers.

sokoloff 13y ago

I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST. I expect a technical employee (myself included) to bring to the company some multiple of their salary each year. With that in mind, I'm far more interested in the possible upside of a good employee than in reducing a portion of the costs of a possibly cheaper employee. (I'm generally "on the hook" for some amount of constant costs: 401-k match, insurance, building occupancy costs, free food/drinks, management attention/overhead needed, etc, so a 25% lower salary might only net me a 15% lower overall cost.) Long term unemployed, excessive job hopping without good explanation, long stints of employment without promotion or other evidence of growth are all red flags. They're not fatal in isolation, but believe me, they get scrutiny by hiring managers who are paying attention. Someone involuntarily out of work in a tech field for 6 months is likely to, at a minimum, interview poorly. (Otherwise, they'd likely land somewhere inside of 2 months.) For your plan to work, one has to be willing to low-ball a candidate who likely just interviewed poorly with you. I don't think the risk-reward works out, which is why I'm probably part of the problem, but willingly so. Candidates that interview poorly get a polite rejection, not a lowball offer.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
But you are not competing against competitors who might steal them away for -24%. You are competing against Walmart: -75% salary, -100% fringe benefits.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  Still misses the value side, but even on the cost side, that's just a recipe for getting someone back in the workforce for 18 months until they re-establish their credibility and confidence and jump ship to another firm for what will be a 300% raise for them. I wouldn't blame them in the least; they'd be an idiot to keep working for me under those circumstances. Hugely helpful for the employee, but an "adequate, not spectacular" employee who works for me for 18 months isn't helping my company much overall. The first 6 months is straight negative; the next 6 is break even, and the next 6 pay back the hole we dug in the first 6. So, good for them and hopefully break even for me, except I lost 18 months of "tempo" with one of my employee spots. For a cash-strapped company, this plan might make more sense. For a profitable and growing later-stage company, I think this makes much less sense. (I work a much later stage company, so that surely colors my opinion and biases here.)
tsotha 13y ago
>I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST. Heh heh. Well, sure. It isn't your money.