Archive for the ‘heinous’ Category

Is a job ever worth handing over your social media log-in info?

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 by Judi

Coercion“Oh brave new world! That has such people in’t!”  In context, this line by Miranda in Shakespeare’s The Tempest (Act V, scene 1), was ironic.  Huxley’s title Brave New World, also ironic.  Let’s visit another literary work:  A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.  A little less facetious and considerably closer to Orwell’s 1984.  

AP recentlyreported that Justin Basset was asked for his FaceBook log in info during an interview so that the company could examine his page because his profile was set to private.  Basset withdrew his application.  (Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords)

This egregious request – and expectation that it will be met – isn’t a stand-alone act.  It just happens to be blatant enough that there’s action moving against it.  But the principle is  condoned within the parameters of other invasive acts, some of which we willingly participate in.  So allow me to digress a bit and follow along outside of the job search world for a minute.

  • Want gas or electricity? A phone? Cable service?  Hand over your ss#. 
  • Get savings and gifts!  Just swipe this little tag you carry on your keychain…. (how many of those do you have?)
  • Prevent terrorism!   Millions support the Patriot Act, which allows the FBI to freely search emails,  phone records, and financial records without a court order. 
  • Been “frisked” or searched when you went through the metal detector prior to flying?
  • How much of the world knows who you are, what you’re doing, who and what you like and don’t like, where you live and went to school, when your birthday is…..because you’re all over social media?

This is not an exhaustive list by any means.

Hiring companies have always conducted references.  Government related entities have always done their checking a little more arduously, and in some cases, rightly so.  But then private companies started with the background checks and fingerprinting.  Then drug tests – even if you weren’t operating machinery.  In the last few years credit checks were added to the mix.

As a career coach, I teach job seekers how to  take back control of their career by not doing everything they’re told, showing them why they don’t have to follow rules such as submitting their resume online and teaching them more productive and effective ways.   I’ve long maintained the reason the companies take all the power is because job seekers give it to them.

But this Facebook thing is different.  There’s not a way around it.  You either give it up or go home.  Obviously not everyone is going to be able to go home, like Basset was.    So what do you do if that’s you?  You still go home.

Don’t be cowed into submission or rationalize it by telling yourself you’ve nothing to hide.  A company who will ask you to hand over that information has no respect for boundaries and that will show up elsewhere after they’ve employed you.  Signing yourself in so they can nose around isn’t any more acceptable. 

Acquiescing is the same as condoning.  Letting a company blur your boundaries is no different than being in a relationship where your partner has no respect for your boundaries.  They’re both invasive and abusive.

Nothing is black and white, especially to a private company who wants to rationalize their screening process for hiring, because unacceptable behavior is tough to define.  What is one company’s harmless behavior can be another company’s cause for dismissal.  It’s the principle we’re talking about here, and the principle is controlling others.  It’s coercion.

For the record, note the article says the Dept of Justice regards it as a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the TOS (although they’re not prosecuting for it), and that both MD and IL have proposed legislation making this illegal.

Have enough respect for yourself to leave, just as Bassett did.  Because if too many people don’t, then bit by bit, it becomes acceptable, simply because there are too many complying.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in case studies, heinous, interviewing, job hunting advice | 2 Comments »

will protection help?……….or not?

Monday, October 10th, 2011 by Judi

446604344_UnemployedNeedNotApplyIllegal_xlargeIt was about two years ago when I began learning from  emailers and clients and job seekers in general that unemployed job seekers were being discriminated against.  It’s great to see an issue getting national exposure that we in the career niche have known about for awhile.

Obama’s proposed bill prevents companies with 15 people or more from not hiring someone who is unemployed.  Cheers, right?  Advocates of job seekers have applauded the proposed measure.  But others say it fosters discrimination in favor of the unemployed and may well result in unnecessary litigation. 

According to Wikipedia:  “Unemployment (or joblessness), as defined by the International Labour Organization, ocurrs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.”  Not hiring the unemployed goes back further than you might expect.

Wikipedia also says that in the 1576 Act each town was required to provide work for the unemployed. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, one of the world’s first government-sponsored welfare programs, made a clear distinction between those who were unable to work and those able-bodied people who refused employment.

I googled various phrases to see what’s happened in the past, but didn’t find much.  In 2006, Gary Aguirre was hired by the SEC, but sued them for not hiring him when he earlier applied for the job.  In 2010, a job applicant asked on a Colorado website if he could sue a company for not hiring him when they required a degree, hired someone who didn’t have one, and he didn’t have one either.  In 2004 a male wanted to sue Hooters for not hiring him as a waiter.

In a 2007 blogpost, one executive advises HR people on how to “delicately” handle the subject of why someone wasn’t hired by issuing any number of vague phrases – none of which are new to so many of todays job seekers.   I can’t count the number of times job seekers have asked me what to do when they have the qualifications, are ignored, and see the job ad remain or even be reposted on a job board.

Personally, I can argue both sides of this.  In deference to the job seekers, I’ve written several articles about the stupidity of companies not hiring the unemployed (here’s the most recent: 
http://findtheperfectjob.com/archives/264.html   In deference to employers, I know from having been a recruiter and now from working with my clients there are an awful lot of job seekers who think they are qualified….and aren’t. 

Companies who don’t hire the unemployed are discounting a valuable resource.  After all, it’s not as if it’s a candidates’ market and thus those who are unemployed are, generally, not the cream of the crop.  These days, there are a lot of very good people who were  let go individually or as a group for reasons having nothing to do with their performance. 

On the flip side, there are going to be job seekers who have a history of not accepting responsibility for their actions and aren’t going to change that if this law goes into effect.  In a world where people sue for spilling hot coffee on their lap, for getting cancer from cigarettes and equally absurd reasons that spend taxpayer dollars and tie up the courts, this attempt at fairness will most definitely have its boundaries tested.

It may well be that a few cases have to be litigated in order to set some sort of a precedent, with or without EEOC guidelines.  This issue isn’t really anything new – it just has a different shape to it. So, whether it’s enacted or not is a moot point, really.  Only in an ideal world will companies consider candidates based solely on their capabilities and credentials, and will job seekers take responsiblity for their decisions and actions and not look for the easy way out.

I’m just wondering………so you sue a company for not being hired and then…..you get lots of money for not being hired which underlines your lack of interest in conducting  a  productive job search in the first place (and shows what type of person you really are) or you get to work there after all.  You lose either way , no?  

Or you can look at it this way – if they don’t want to hire you because you’re unemployed, it’s not likely to be a place you want to work anyway.  Then you’re at a meet up group and run into the hiring manager who put you in the “no” stack because you were unemployed, you can quietly hope he’s learned something from his earlier decision.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, behavior/psychology, heinous, interviewing | No Comments »

courtesy isn’t optional

Monday, August 1st, 2011 by Judi

bill of rightsOld enough to remember Laugh-In?  “We don’t have to; we’re the phone company.”  Lily Tomlin’s line that reminds you of the pleasures of doing business with a monopoly.  This hasn’t changed much (I have a land line for telesminars) but other things have.  A lot.

I read somewhere today that thank you notes for gifts are old-fashioned and texting or simply saying, “thank you” is sufficient.  I don’t agree.  I may be old enough to remember Laugh In but good manners never go out of style. 

Especially when it comes to the job search.

Before I lambast the companies, a word to the job seekers.  See above paragraph about thank you notes.  They aren’t optional after an interview.  Unless of course you don’t want the job.

Companies – when did arrogance come into the picture?  Back in the days of typewriters companies actually typed responses to job seekers.  There was a lot more effort involved in those.  The 60s, 70s, 80s and on have been good years for job seekers and the companies were the underdog.  Maybe that’s why they did it then and not now. 

(Job seekers – see earlier paragraph on thank you notes)

But even though it’s an employers market, technology facilitates responses and the sheer volume of received resumes is no excuse for not responding, forcing people to figure it out or  putting some inane statement to the effect of “If you don’t hear from us you weren’t chosen” in the ad.

I’ve long said “small things telling” meaning not only do actions speak louder than words, but seemingly inconsequential things are often indicators of bigger positions.  A company that doesn’t bother to let candidates know the status of things is likely to be inconsiderate in larger matters as well.  Like you as an employee perhaps. 

One of the people in my network tweeted a link to an excellent article about the need for a candidate bill of rights.  If you’re a candidate, read it becuase you’ll appreciate the validation.  If you’re a company, read it because you should be mindful of this.  http://fb.me/UrRLSAiq

Tags: , , ,
Posted in behavior/psychology, heinous, interviewing | 1 Comment »

6 things that really bug me

Monday, February 28th, 2011 by Judi

irritatedSome of my own personal pet peeves.

  • UNWILLINGNESS TO LEARN: Why?  With so many resources out there, why do some people not invest in themselves? Or seek out new information to expand their horizon?  Whatever it is you do for a living, did you know how to do that right out of the box? Of course not.  What about stuff around the house? Wiring? Cooking? Gardening? Playing guitar?  You read. You learned. You paid for lessons.  Why are you not doing that with your job search?
  • RUDE HIRING AUTHORITIES:  If you were referred to someone in a company, especially if that person actively and verbally referred you, and then you follow up, they should get back with you.  Even if it’s to say thank you, we’re not hiring.  Or thank you, please submit your resume on line.  Even if they have their admin get back with you.  To stay silent is rude and unprofessional.
  • IRRESPONSIBLE RECRUITERS:  Who lie.  Who send your resume out without your permission.  And by the way, not doing that should go without saying, but it’s good to say it anyway. “Please make sure you contact me prior to submitting my resume.” Recruiters who submit you with your knowledge, then never return your call.  Probably because the company dumped them.
  • PROCRASTINATION: I don’t care if it’s fear of change, you hate to do your resume, you’re afraid of the unknown.  Get about it.  You’re the only one who has the power to change your life.  It’s a choice.  Your choice.  You can a) go forward into the unknown, learn, fall on your face, learn, get better, continue to learn, grow, and change your circumstances, b) complain while things get worse (because they never stay the same – you’re either moving forward or moving backward), c) choose to not do anything now and know why you’re choosing that (rather than complain) or d) drive your car off a bridge.  Pick one.
  • WHEN I FORGET TO ATTACH THINGS:  It’s an extra few minutes, more clicks, and extra email in your box.  Everyone does it occasionally.  I do it a lot.  Although knowing I do it, I like to think I’m getting better at not doing it.  I hope anyway.  When I have too much going on, I tend to move too fast and drop details
  • CAPITALIZING THINGS THAT SHOULDN’T BE:  I see it in resumes.  I see it in ads.  What is with this trend?  It drives me nuts.  This was the norm in the 1700s, but it’s 300 years later.  So why are people still capitalizing things that aren’t proper nouns? (Real examples) 
    • Responsible for Project Management, Business Operations, and Organizational Change  (if those are actual departments, they get capped, but my guess is they are activities, and thus they do not get capped).
    • Institute a Common Framework (The Common Framework as a title, but a common framework as a general description)
    • Responsible for the Automotive, Transportation, and Hospitality industries (again, general descriptions do not get capped)
    • Driven by the Onboarding Process (I can’t begin to even understand this one)
    • Building relationships with Transformation Team Leadership, Business and Operations leads and counterparts, and Vendors (how do you build a relationship with leadership?  Leaders, yes, but leadership? and by what stretch of the imagination does vendors get a capital V?)

Posted in behavior/psychology, heinous | No Comments »

this decision makes me ill

Friday, June 18th, 2010 by Judi

unemployedFirst, I want to lay some ground work.

Having been a recruiter for 22 years (which is straight commission sales), with a lot of repeat clients, and having always been a top producer, I know a thing or two about sales.  I know a thing or two about the psychology of people, too.  These are two of the things that differentiate me from so many other career coaches, and thus allows me to be struggling through the expansion  that I am.

I’ve long discussed the two types of companies and their differences.  I’ve also taught why and how hiring authorities default to “No,” and how to get around that in the job seeking process.   Learning and understanding that is partially why so many of my clients have found jobs, not easily, but quickly.

And now this.  Stupidity.  A prime example of one of the two types of companies and an even more emphatic reason why the factors I talk about must be put into play before you start your search.

You know what I’d like to say  to these companies and those who made this decision? “There but for the grace of God, go you, you idiots.”

Thank goodness for companies like these.  Recruiters love them.  Companies like this are often the first place to be raided because of their pervasive attitude that manifests itself in so many other ways.

I’d also like to ask them “You couldn’t think of any new way to screen?  Is your business built on such arbitrary decisions?  Does your withdrawing this requirement when asked about it by the media give you any clue at all about the requirement you’ve just implemented?”

What am I talking about? 

Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they’re looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.

Is there a way around this?  Sure.  There are about 5 ways I can think of right off the top of my head.  I totally see why this is happening, what the obvious repercussions are for those who are unemployed, and why it makes understanding the psychology and behavioral thinking process of these people all that more important if you want to get around it. 

For two years now, “good enough” hasn’t been.  You’ve needed to be “cutting edge.”  Now that’s not only more important, you better be razor sharp, and learn this skill called job seeking like your life depended on it.  Because it looks like it might.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Outofwork-job-applicants-told-cnnm-3498252371.html?x=0

Posted in behavior/psychology, heinous, interviewing | No Comments »

when is an offer not an offer?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 by Judi Perkins

scared personI received an email from a woman who was “elated about an offer for employment for a long awaited job opportunity.”  She’d been looking for a while and hadn’t been having much luck.  Despite her elation, she went with her instinct and turned down the offer.  

They’d been “sweating” her about coming in for training while she was working notice on her current job.  She felt she needed to have fully resigned one job before she began another.  They countered with they needed to train her before she started with them. 

She wrote, because she wasn’t sure she’d made the right decision.  I told her she absolutely had made the right decision and applauded her for making it.  It takes guts to turn down an offer when you want a new job badly, even if you’re employed. 

That wasn’t a job offer.  It was “sort of” an offer.  It was a dangling carrot.  “Don’t quit your job yet because we want to see if we actually like you before you start, and if we don’t, then you won’t actually be starting, and you’ll still have a job.”

Later she emailed me again.  They’d been calling and “pestering” her.  She wanted to know how to handle it.  Not coincidentally, in this email she wrote  “this company is also known for its high turnover due to its unpleasant working environment.”  So perhaps they didn’t want her to quit because they realized she might quit them first, rather than what I’d initially surmised.

No matter.  Either way, it would have been a losing proposition for her to accept it.  Even if she’d made it through the transition she’d have been there just a few months, and having left her current job…where would she be? Nowhere.

So in answer to the pestering lady question, here’s what I advised:

Don’t give in or second guess yourself- stick with your original decision!  Just say “Thank you very much but I’ve decided to withdraw myself from consideration.  I’m no longer interested.”
 
If she calls again, repeat the message, but start with “As I said last time we spoke (etc)…”
 
And if she calls a third time, then it’s time to get a little….not rude or nasty, but certainly emphatically insistent.  “As I’ve told you twice, I am no longer interested in working with your company.  My decision is final.  Please do not call me again as I will not ever change my mind.”
Gotta be FIRM.  Not apologetic, not “nice.”  Just firm.  It’s a FIRM statement.  No room for debate.  As far as I’m concerned, if she calls a fourth time, just hang up on her! 

My point being, that at the point, the one who wasn’t getting it was the pestering lady and her invasive behavior.  If she hadn’t understood and respected the message by then, she probably wasn’t going to.  So why not save your breath and your energy?  

For those of you who might not have gone that route and worried about who knows you and who they know and if it would affect a job somewhere else and what about references and will it have an adverse effect, save your worrying.  The possibility of that is slim.  And quite frankly, anyone that knows this company and is worth working for (small things telling!), would probably call you precisely because you handled it as you did.

Tags: ,
Posted in behavior/psychology, heinous, job offers, true life tales | No Comments »

Job and Career Advice? (heinous #3)

Saturday, November 14th, 2009 by Judi Perkins

I’d like  to name this person who gives job and career advice because this person is perceived and put forth as a career expert, and because of where she “resides,” her career information is supposedly trustworthy. 

She’s  dispensing career information on resumes, interviews, and all things related to finding a job, but to name her would be unprofessional.  

I noticed that for writing a resume, she advocates using an objective .  They are SO dead for lack of information, specifics, and insight into the individual.  Furthermore, the ones she provides will get you nowhere because your resume got tossed into the trash.  A quick run through other parts of her career advice to job seekers wasn’t any more reassuring.

So just because someone is out there as an career coach and expert, doesn’t mean they are.   And if you have no idea who I am and have never worked with me, that means me too.  The best way is look for free career advice information – subscribe to the person’s newsletter, see if they offer free reports, find articles they may have written on how to find a job and all the issues that entails.  

And it goes without saying that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the career newsletters either.

Posted in Uncategorized, heinous | No Comments »

Interview Question: no, no, and no!! (heinous #2)

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 by Judi Perkins

I read this today in a career newsletter that those who are finding a job assume has expert and therefore correct, job advice.  This newsletter has  a HUGE circulation.  This entry goes with the one on my Facebook fan page (http://tinyurl.com/how2careercoach) that starts out HEINOUS!  In fact, maybe I’ll just start a HEINOUS! category.

I’m not naming the career ”expert” who posted this – the name is irrelvant anyway - but they’re a recruiter and they should know better.  

Here’s their advice:

Toward the end of an interview the interviewer will typically turn to you and ask “do you have any questions?” It is always good to be prepared for this question and to have good thought out questions to respond with. Things that are always good to ask about are company benefits, pay day schedule, management set-up, what does a typical day in this job look like? – those kinds of questions keep the conversation going and show your interest in the position.

Aye carumba!  Can anyone spot the NO NO NO part?  Yes, it’s the “company benefits, pay day schedule” part. A little psychological insight into why I’m so emphatic.

The money/benefits/vacation part is a game, but it’s not really a game.  Some people make money the priority in their job search,  but that’s putting the cart before the horse.  First, if you focus on money to the exclusion of the people with whom you’ll be working, the philosophy and culture of the company, whether the new job has the components that motivate you and make you happy to be there (and about ten other things I’m not going to go into now because it’s off the topic of this post),  you might very well be unhappy in your new job at this company.

Sell yourself to the highest bidder without regard for all the other factors and if you’re unhappy, eventually the money you’re making isn’t going to be enough to compensate you for work ingat a place you hate.  And once the relief of your new job wears off and reality sets in, that’s what you could very well discover.

That’s why salary doesn’t get talked about first (it does with companies, but again, that’s a whole separate topic and post).  Because the point of an interview is to find out if they’re who you want and you’re who they want.  Additionally, it’s ridiculous to talk about money when neither side has attached value to the other.

If you’re going to buy a car for $30K and you won’t go over that price, and someone calls you up and says “Hey I have this cherry red convertible that runs like a dream; cream leather seats and brand new stereo – it’s $37K – you want it?” You’ll be like, “no, too expensive.”  So say – just say – you decide to go look at it.  And you fall in love with the color and you drive it and feel the wind in your hair and the sun on your face and maybe you begin to rationalize why $37K is okay.

The point here isn’t actually about going higher or lower than your salary, as much as it is about value.  Once you get to know something – or someone – and decide you want it – or them – then you look at how you can make it work.  So salary up front, and making a decision on that, might eliminate getting the information you need.

This isn’t to say money is unimportant.  One of my clients right now has an offer on the table with a company who has offered her $74.  In her previous job, in a slightly different capacity, she was making over $90K.  She really likes the place and wants the job.  Every single other one of the 8 points I put so much emphasis on is ranking very high.  There are some other issues we’re discussing that aren’t relevant to this blog post, but what is relevant is that the difference is enough that it poses a serious problem, not the least of which might be compromising her salary in future positions.  She was willing to bottom line at $80K.  So we’re embarking on a negotiation strategy.

Had the salary been discussed up front, she’d have walked away and never learned that she really wants to work here.  Perhaps we can work it out, perhaps not.

From the company’s side, it’s a huge turn off.  Yes, I know they violate that by asking you up front, but like I said, that’s a different circumstance and for another time.  At the point they’ve decided to bring you in, your asking about salary at the beginning of the interview communicates that that’s all you care about.  It tells them that your head is in the wrong place for all the reasons stated earlier.  A company wants someone who wants them for who they are, not someone who is all about the paycheck.  Ask those two questions ever, much less in the first interview, and you’ll be dropped from consideration.

In fact, don’t ever, ever bring up the topic.  Period.

That advice, and HEINOUS #1, just underlines that just because an expert is out there, doesn’t mean they’re an expert.  There are some good career people and columns out there though that offer excellent career advice, and I’ll be bringing those up too.  It’s not all about ME!  LOL

Posted in heinous, interviewing, salary | No Comments »