Job Stuff 16

This is more or less a newsletter for job seekers like myself.  I try to find good job search strategies, bad job search strategies, pure BS and job related articles every week.  So far I’ve never run short.  Please pass this around. I’m not doing this for any reason other than the desire to help and communicate with other job seekers.  If you have any good links or stories, especially stories please comment.  If you want the story private, just put that in the comment and I will trash it and  not let it post.

A job seekers toolkit.  I haven’t looked at this but it looks like it covers the basics and can get a job seeker started.

Job hopping, good or bad?

The reality is that job hopping is created by the current short term thinking of employers.  If employers are not willing to make a level of commitment to their employees why should they expect that employees owe anything to  their employer?  Yet somehow they keep believing that the employees owe them everything, just for a lousy small paycheck.




A good take on what you should look for in an employee.

What a recruiter wants to see in a resume.

In a resume, brevity is the soul of wit. But trying to figure what’s important isn’t easy.  I can’t count the number of times that some trivial experience that I was thinking of pulling became an interview topic.

This is a VERY bad idea.

Richard Arjauo’s comment gets to the heart of the employment problem:

Just because resumes get rejected, doesn’t mean they weren’t qualified. Were they rejected because it was a Marketing Manager with no development experience applying for a Java Developer role, or was it because it was a developer who had 99.9999% of the experience required, but only had 4.6 years of experience, whereas the role ‘requires’ 5 years? The assumption that all resumes are rejected for a rational reason, and those candidates were incapable of performing the job, is incorrect. There is no guarantee that this process will result in the transparency the author suggests. Quite the opposite, by making people pay to apply, on top of what is already a ridiculously involved and repetitive process at most companies, would only likely make employers feel more entitled, not less. Do you ever interview people who have to use PTO to get there? Then they’re ALREADY paying for the ‘privilege.’ Has it helped at all to bring about anything the author foresees? No. Because charging people to apply assumes that currently applicants incur no costs, which is largely incorrect, and as the process proceeds becomes completely false once they start interviewing. What’s more, there is nothing stopping organizations from proceeding with this transparency right now. If the benefits for them are real in terms of getting those few real matches, why isn’t it done right now? If heart, emotion, and logic are at issue here, then logic tells us that with perpetually more people who wants jobs than there are jobs available, corporations should have the pick of the litter. Yet it’s still taking them ages to hire, and their primary complaint is still a ‘shortage’ of talent, despite the fact that this would be the only ‘shortage’ in the history of economics where prices for the product – wages – stagnated and fell instead of rising. In other words, all indications are that the hiring process is broken and that it’s corporations who have broken it, because there really is no shortage of talent, but there is a MASSIVE surplus of overly involved, convoluted, ineffective, highly invasive, and presumptuous hiring processes which put ever more demands on applicants while asking nothing of those who are doing the hiring. Logic would tell us that if the process is so one sided, corrupted, and broken, that it’s heart and emotion that keep it going with perpetual band aids, all of which are needed to bandage the never ending series of lashes that land on people’s backs for increasingly rare ‘privilege’ of doing something productive and getting paid a decent salary for it, when in fact logic would tell us to abandon the process en toto, and to rebuild it from the ground up. Here’s my ideas: – Resumes are archaic, get rid of them. There’s nothing wrong with a timeline record of where you worked, but as a main selling point not only is it archaic, it has zero predictive value. – Interviews done wrong are detrimental, and most people do them wrong. Train people to do them right, or stop doing them. – Break every job you have available down to a deliverable, a time frame, and a quality standard, and a skill set or series of them, from basic to advanced, necessary to do the job successfully. – Instead of writing a description of who you ‘think’ can do the job, define the job as per above, and allow people to ‘apply’ by going through tests to see if they actually have the skills needed. Then meet the top candidates and see which one(s) you think you and your team would get along with long term. If there’s a more objective way to predict that, use that method instead. – Full transparency with salary ranges and company culture from the beginning, at no cost. The problem overall with hiring is everyone is still using their gut and not their brain. Human beings are horrible judges of character, of skill, and generally tend to make decisions within seconds using the most primitive parts of their brains and then spend the rest of their lives justifying those decisions, regardless of how much contradictory evidence exists. The hiring process isn’t broken because it’s costing people too little to apply, it’s broken because while science and engineering have advanced many business processes, hiring is still done on the, “I’ll know ’em when I see ’em,” go-with-your-gut method, that has all the reliability of a meth addled ferret. In reality the most critical questions are: do they have the required skills?; can they work for the necessary length of time with their specific manager, in that specific company, and in it’s prevailing atmosphere and with its existing processes? Hiring processes as they currently exist do more to obscure the answers to those questions than answer them, and putting a price on applying assumes the problem is the applicants when all evidence suggests it’s the other way around.

Karina Stavenes’ comment is also relevant:

I’m sorry Mr. Fleischauer, but I respectfully disagree with your post. It seems you’re approaching this from the mindset that the unemployed must have time and money to spare, so they are wasting employers’ and recruiters’ time with nonsensical job applications just for the sake of it, and should therefore, be penalized by having to pay a fee for even applying. As candidates, it’s already frustrating enough that we spend far more hours researching, preparing applications, cover letters, resumes and docs, than any employer will ever bother to spend even looking at. We’re then overlooked for roles we may have been perfectly qualified for on the basis of someone’s capricious impatience not to bother reading our CV, or not taking the placement seriously enough, especially when they’ve already decided to give the role to a friend or relative. I’m sorry, but we’re already technically tested enough, multiparty interviewed enough, then put through enough waiting purgatory afterwards to seriously make anyone wonder why we bother applying at all. Employers, recruiters and candidates should all approach the matter with respect and decency and without fleecing anyone. Candidates apply seriously, not to play nor waste your time

The fact is that for me and more  than likely a lot of people it doesn’t take a lot anymore to prevent us from pressing the “submit” button in an ATS application.  After a certain level of machine rejection, we get the point.  That doesn’t help the companies find good people though.

The whole H1b fiasco is a perfect demonstration of how screwed up  things are.

Of course the people in Congress are looking at this the wrong  way, wanting yet more rules to gum up a process that’s thoroughly screwed up already.  We need fewer rules gumming things up, not more.

Five signs that your boss doesn’t know what you are doing.

When you have a manager that disconnects themselves from the day to goings on, it doesn’t end well.

Five things to avoid for interview success.

Blah, blah blah.  Just be perfect and it will work out. send up the wrong invisible flags and you are screwed.  Since the flags are invisible how do you know?

And another one full of advice.

In my experience, the failed interview is a two way street.  All of the times I “failed” an interview it was because the interviewing person wasn’t trying to actually relate and had no interest in trying to make it work.  The candidate can pitch all they have, but there needs to be some catching there too.

The problem with social media is that it’s a two edged sword for candidates.


On the one hand it can be a great tool for building relationships outside your immediate circle.  On the other hand it can be scrutinized for things that can ruin your chances. more invisible flags and virtue signaling.

Job Stuff 15.

Job Stuff 14.

Job Stuff 13.

Job Stuff 12.

Job Stuff 11.

Job Stuff 10.

Job Stuff 9.

Job Stuff 8.

Job Stuff 7:

Job Stuff 6:

Job Stuff 5:

Job Stuff 4:

Job Stuff 3:

Job Stuff 2:

Job Stuff 1:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s