POL: The unemployed

[Honolulu Blue]

Uprisings in the Middle East. Civil war in Libya. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and nuclear meltdowns in Japan. Fiscal crises in certain minor European nations. So what's got me most upset these days? The unemployed.

These days more and more people with hiring authority think it's cool to not consider them as viable candidates for their positions. Some are even brazen enough to put it in their ads. Sorry I don't have the links to any news articles handy; your favorite search engine should find them.

There are two arguments made against considering the unemployed, both with some legitimacy:

1) "They've lost skills while they've been out of work"
2) "If they've been out of work this long, there must be something wrong with them"

There's not enough legitimacy in them, IMO, to exclude the whole class.

Rant over. Back to our regularly scheduled discussions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

{shrug} Employers should be free to hire or not hire whomever they choose.

If there's enough value in group X, it's to their detriment not to hire them & to their competitors advantage. If not, they made the right call in the first place.

Personally I don't think it's generically something that would influence my hiring decision but that's my call, same as it's Employer X's.

[wade moore]

I think you're painting with WAY too broad of a brush.

You came in and make this rant, but then tell US we need to go look up articles? :shurg: Not really planning on doing that since YOU are the one asking for our take.

Without details, it's hard to say much. If we're talking about someone who has been unemployed for 2 years, I'm absolutely going to have that be a factor in my hiring. If it's 2 months, not so much.

There are a lot of unknowns in your broad statement.

[molson]

I think any employer would want to know why you were let go. If it was from a company that no longer exists, and everyone was let go, I don't think most people would hold that against you (and if they did, they're probably a terrible company/hirer and they won't be business long anyway, or will be a terrible place to work). If you were fired from a stable company, I can see that being a problem, because new employers will never feel like they're getting the REAL story about what happened. But I would think generally, the stigma would go away a little in times like this. If you're in a position to hire, there's a lot of talent out there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, I wasn't bothered by the lack of linkage, I've been seeing these stories for at least a couple of months now & with a little Googling they seem to go back at least as far as June 2010. Seems to get a little more play on the left, with everything ranging from "it's a GOP conspiracy" to "they're using it to screen minorities" to more mundane "it's another tool for HR to help sort through the piles of applications". The most notable instance was probably Sony Ericcson earlier this year, who caved (on paper at least) when the media tried to make something of it. The story seems to have become almost an "evergreen", one that newspaper run occasionally to fill space on a slow day, much the way the local rag did in the past week.

Here's CNN from nearly a year ago
Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply - Jun. 16, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm)

Here's USA Today from last month (an AP story)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-02-16-job-application_N.htm

Heck, here's an HR-oriented blogger who talked about it in September 2009
http://hr.toolbox.com/blogs/executive-search/are-there-really-people-who-wont-hire-the-unemployed-34077

[Passacaglia]

I think you're painting with WAY too broad of a brush.

You came in and make this rant, but then tell US we need to go look up articles? :shurg: Not really planning on doing that since YOU are the one asking for our take.

Without details, it's hard to say much. If we're talking about someone who has been unemployed for 2 years, I'm absolutely going to have that be a factor in my hiring. If it's 2 months, not so much.

There are a lot of unknowns in your broad statement.

Not only that, he doesn't even tell us WHICH search engine we should use!!

[Lathum]

I think Jon and Wade hit it on the head. Employers should be free to hire the person they feel is best fitted for the job. That will likely be someone who has fresh experience in a similar role.

[wade moore]

Not only that, he doesn't even tell us WHICH search engine we should use!!
:shurg:... mock all you want, but I think it's pretty silly to come in and say, "can you believe this stuff I'm reading! It's ridiculous!.... oh, I want you to weigh in, but I'm not going to be bothered to give you the articles I'm talking about"

It's clear HB has an agenda based on a specific set of articles/experiences. I would even go as far as to speculate that HB may be among the unemployed created by this economy, and that is weighing in here.

But I personally have not seen these articles he's referring to. When starting a thread asking for a reaction to recent articles, it is proper form to give some context and not expect the other posters to go out and do the leg work.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think the main thing which affects me when I review a candidate who is long term unemployed is simply 'what have you been doing' - if you've been a couch potato for a long period of time then I'll be concerned about work ethic and whether the switch back to employment will suit them, if you've been volunteering with local charities and attempting to design your own rocket car while unemployed I'll view the application totally differently ....

[JediKooter]

I think the main thing which affects me when I review a candidate who is long term unemployed is simply 'what have you been doing' - if you've been a couch potato for a long period of time then I'll be concerned about work ethic and whether the switch back to employment will suit them, if you've been volunteering with local charities and attempting to design your own rocket car while unemployed I'll view the application totally differently ....

How about a year long study on internet porn? That takes dedication.

[Lathum]

I think the main thing which affects me when I review a candidate who is long term unemployed is simply 'what have you been doing' - if you've been a couch potato for a long period of time then I'll be concerned about work ethic and whether the switch back to employment will suit them, if you've been volunteering with local charities and attempting to design your own rocket car while unemployed I'll view the application totally differently ....

The problem I see with this is people don't always have the time to do stuff like this. If I was to lose my job, the first thing we would do is take my son out of daycare and I would have to become a stay at home dad. This would limit my time to volunteer and such.

[JediKooter]

I think there's a lot of presuppositions about people who are long term unemployed. Most of them wrong. Obviously they want to work since they are applying for jobs. I would say of the 100% of people that are involuntarily unemployed, how many of them do you honestly think, don't actually want to work?

I'm with Lathum, not everyone's circumstance fits into a nice neat little jello mold that you can base every unemployed person on.

[wade moore]

I think there's a lot of presuppositions about people who are long term unemployed. Most of them wrong. Obviously they want to work since they are applying for jobs. I would say of the 100% of people that are involuntarily unemployed, how many of them do you honestly think, don't actually want to work?

I'm with Lathum, not everyone's circumstance fits into a nice neat little jello mold that you can base every unemployed person on.
No offense, but clearly neither of you have hired in the business world before.

[JediKooter]

No offense, but clearly neither of you have hired in the business world before.

You are correct. However, when does a manager ever blame themselves for making a piss poor hiring decision instead of blaming that employee?

[jeff061]

I would say if you have 50 people applying for the job the first step is filtering them down. That could very likely be tossing people who aren't employed. Same as tossing people without a college degree.

No one is going to interview all 50 and you certainly can't tell A is better than B based off a resume. All you have to go by is shallow stuff.

[King of New York]

Not all people who apply for a job want to work. Sometimes people apply for a job because they have medical work that needs to be done, and they need the insurance coverage that comes with a job. So they take the job, get the medical work done, and then quit.

Are there many folks like this? No. But once you've been burned by this once, you will scrutinize applicants who are currently out of work much harder than you would otherwise.

It's an unfortunate situation: some long-term unemployed are such through no fault of their own and would make fine employees, and some are such because they are mediocre or even incompetent. Distinguishing the one from the other is not always easy.

As a society, I'm not sure that we have this (relatively new, historically speaking) wage labor thing figured out yet.

[JediKooter]

I'm really referring to the long term involuntarily unemployed. People that are laid off or their company went out of business or their company was bought by another company and their division was axed.

As far as benefits are concerned, unless there's some state law (I honestly don't know), that can be fixed by the employee having to be employed for 6 months to a year before they kick in. I mean, companies do that with vacation, why not with medical benefits? Don't get me wrong, it's not always a slam dunk on hiring the 'best of the best' and is sometimes a crap shoot.

My point is, don't assume that just because someone has been out of work for an extended period of time, that means they don't want to work or are not worthy of hiring or are trying to game the system for benefits. If you (the ubiquitous "you") are finding that you are having to fire employee after employee, I would say there's a flaw in your hiring ability as a manager and you may not be good or competent at it.

[Lathum]

No offense, but clearly neither of you have hired in the business world before.

No offense but clearly you don't have a child and all the extenuating circumstances that can come with it.

To make a blanket statement that someone who is out of work should be out there doing charity work, etc... completely discounts other real world situations.

[jeff061]

No offense but clearly you don't have a child and all the extenuating circumstances that can come with it.

To make a blanket statement that someone who is out of work should be out there doing charity work, etc... completely discounts other real world situations.

It's business, rarely is that taken into consideration and it shouldn't be. I have 60 similar resumes. How do I cut it down to 5-10 without talking to every single one of them?

Everyone has their methods, they are all shallow and piss people off and I'm sure employed or not is not uncommon.

[gstelmack]

No offense but clearly you don't have a child and all the extenuating circumstances that can come with it.

To make a blanket statement that someone who is out of work should be out there doing charity work, etc... completely discounts other real world situations.

I took Marc as giving some illustrative points. Being a stay-at-home Dad is not being a couch potato. But, to take an example near to me, if an umeployed game programmer is a stay-at-home Dad, he's still likely finding time at night to write some small bits of game code, utilities, etc, rather than completely knocking off. I think that was Marc's point.

[Lathum]

It's business, rarely is that taken into consideration and it shouldn't be. I have 60 similar resumes. How do I cut it down to 5-10 without talking to every single one of them?

Everyone has their methods, they are all shallow and piss people off and I'm sure employed or not is not uncommon.

I think using charity work as a way to separate candidates is a poor criteria. If it is a single person, etc I would scrutinize what they were doing with their free time a lot more than someone with real responsibilities.

[JediKooter]

It's business, rarely is that taken into consideration and it shouldn't be. I have 60 similar resumes. How do I cut it down to 5-10 without talking to every single one of them?

Everyone has their methods, they are all shallow and piss people off and I'm sure employed or not is not uncommon.

30 of them probably don't meet the job description criteria. 5 of them could have been trashed because you couldn't read them. Another 5 could be thrown out because of criminal records. Throw out 2 or 3 that are over qualified. Now you're down to 17. Then by the time you even get close to phone interviews or on site interviews, there will be some more that have either already found a job or are no longer interested. Now you're down into the lower teens. Doesn't always work that way, but, there's plenty of filtering processes that can be done before even getting to the consideration of the length of that person being unemployed.

Don't get me wrong, I actually empathize for both sides on this. A company wants to hire quality employees and an unemployed person wants to work for a good company and do a good job.

[wade moore]

It's business, rarely is that taken into consideration and it shouldn't be. I have 60 similar resumes. How do I cut it down to 5-10 without talking to every single one of them?

Everyone has their methods, they are all shallow and piss people off and I'm sure employed or not is not uncommon.

I took Marc as giving some illustrative points. Being a stay-at-home Dad is not being a couch potato. But, to take an example near to me, if an umeployed game programmer is a stay-at-home Dad, he's still likely finding time at night to write some small bits of game code, utilities, etc, rather than completely knocking off. I think that was Marc's point.

Yup and yup.

I understand that having a kid and being a stay at home dad is a big commitment.

But if you're out of paid work for a year and you go into a job interview for a, oh, let's say Help Desk job (cause that's what I know) and I ask what you did for the last year and you say, "oh, I was a stay at home dad".... You'd better have "...and I also did..." in there somewhere.

To be honest, as jeff says, there's a good chance I don't even get to an interview with you.

Is it unfair? Probably. Do you miss out on good candidates? Probably. Is it harsh? Eh, maybe. Is it practical? Absolutely.

[stevew]

My wife is a few credits short of a Master's degree and is unqualified to work at Borders. She was subbing in Ohio for awhile, but $65 a day for a 9 hour school day isn't even worth it. Something needs to happen here soon, I'm at my limit.

But I probably wouldn't hire anyone unemployed either.

[jeff061]

I don't believe they are even allowed to ask questions about your marital or children status. Else they open themselves to various discrimination suits.

I think it's black and white in this discussion. How long has it been since you last were doing the job you are applying for? By charity do you mean doing the type of work you make a living off of for free or like soup kitchen charity? I don't think the latter is relevant in any way.

[jeff061]

30 of them probably don't meet the job description criteria. 5 of them could have been trashed because you couldn't read them. Another 5 could be thrown out because of criminal records. Throw out 2 or 3 that are over qualified. Now you're down to 17. Then by the time you even get close to phone interviews or on site interviews, there will be some more that have either already found a job or are no longer interested. Now you're down into the lower teens. Doesn't always work that way, but, there's plenty of filtering processes that can be done before even getting to the consideration of the length of that person being unemployed..

Yeah.... that's really not the way it plays out in the real world :).

Besides, when I said 60 I kind of meant that you had already tossed the clearly unqualified ones and were left with a relatively similar batch.

[Lathum]

Is it unfair? Probably. Do you miss out on good candidates? Probably. Is it harsh? Eh, maybe. Is it practical? Absolutely.
Potentialy missing out od good candidates isn't practical. IMO

I don't believe they are even allowed to ask questions about your marital or children status. Else they open themselves to various discrimination suits.


no, but they are allowed to ask what you have been doing with the gap in your resume.

[Lathum]

dola- and a lot of it boils down to styles.

I would personaly rather hire someone who has a family and has maybe been out of work a while as opposed to someone already employed looking to change companies. Assuming they were qualified equally or close to it. The guy with a family has a lot more to work for and would likely show more loyalty. The guy looking to change jobs, whats to say he wont do the same thing 6 months down the road.

[jeff061]

Potentialy missing out od good candidates isn't practical. IMO



no, but they are allowed to ask what you have been doing with the gap in your resume.

And if you get to the interview they will, but like I said, there's a good chance they don't have time to contact everyone and are simply looking for reason to slim the pile down.


Potentialy missing out od good candidates isn't practical. IMO

You guys are missing the point :D. Frankly I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so I think I'll just bow out.

[wade moore]

Potentialy missing out od good candidates isn't practical. IMO

Again, you clearly haven't hired in the business world before.

Look, you're obviously sensitive on this and have something personal at stake in this discussion (I don't know if you're unemployed, family, etc).

This is really not an evil thing like you're making it out to be. As jeff said, you're often looking at say 60 qualified people for 1 job. You HAVE to weed out in some way. It's pretty logical to weed them out partially by pulling out ones with an extended gap in their resume. Just like I weed out ones that are "job-jumpers".

When you have to cut down 60 people to a more manageable 5-10, you're going to risk cutting out "good candidates". Yes, it is completely practical. Because you simply can't interview 60 candidates. If you can, you must not have a lot else going on in your day job. I spend 30-60 minutes, at minimum, interviewing a candidate. So you're talking about around 7-8 days of work dedicates just to interviewing. It simply can't happen.

[Lathum]

Again, you clearly haven't hired in the business world before.

Look, you're obviously sensitive on this and have something personal at stake in this discussion (I don't know if you're unemployed, family, etc).

.

nope, no personal connection at all. I am gainfully employed, as is my wife. We make well over 100K combined, are college educated and have never had an issue with employment. Have plenty in the bank and generally lead a blessed life.

I more had a problem with your condescending tone because someone disagreed with you, but I am probably misinterpreting your tone.

[Marc Vaughan]

The problem I see with this is people don't always have the time to do stuff like this. If I was to lose my job, the first thing we would do is take my son out of daycare and I would have to become a stay at home dad. This would limit my time to volunteer and such.

Just to confirm what others have already guessed:

That would be as equally valid as anything else I've indicated in my book .... heck I'd argue looking after kids full-time is harder work than errr work ;)

[Suburban Rhythm]

I'll add my .02

I was unemployed this summer, a little over 2 months. The company I was with did not shut down or have severe cutbacks. IMO, I was a damn good employee, but there was a rather major issue I was in the middle of. I am not management level, but the rung below. I presented my case as far as what I did, why I acted in that manner, etc etc. After reviewing for a few days, I was let go. Pretty shocking to be honest. The first week after was pretty weird, I really didn't know what to think.

I got calls for about 10 jobs in the 2+ month span. of those, about 6-7 went beyond the initial phone call. Of those, 2 went beyond the first face to face interview. One that I honestly thought I had nailed, nothing ever happened. The other, which came about around a month after the first, I accepted.

In the 1st scenario, after meeting with HR the first time, I met with the Director of Finance. He basically told me he "loved my resume". I explained to him (as well as the HR rep) the situation with the last job. He told me if it's up to him, I'll be in the final group of candidates who will meet with the COO. Never got that call. Was the unemployment part of the issue? I'll never know. Do I feel it was? I guess yes. Either the Director Finance was lying to me, or he presented his case and the COO felt I was a risk based on prior employment.

This leads me into a question of my own.

My prior career history was 11+ years, all at the same company (3 different positions/sectors). The current position is at about 7 months. With that 2 month gap.

At what point is that gap no longer an issue with future opportunities? I realize the true answer is probably NEVER. But, after a year here? 2 years? 10 years?

[molson]

And if you get to the interview they will, but like I said, there's a good chance they don't have time to contact everyone and are simply looking for reason to slim the pile down.


I'm surprised to hear that sentiment so often. I'm in a legal office (I think that would count as the real world, though it's not as numbers/busines oriented as a traditional business), and new hires are critical because a bad one can cause all kinds of problems that aren't easily corrected. So they take their time on the hiring decisions. Sure, there's some filters, but "currently unemployed" is a terrible one, IMO. It can be a factor - but as a blind filter, I think that's silly (especially if you only have 50 resumes, that's really not that many.) It's worth the time to make a good hire. I don't understand the opposing sentiment, "I got all this stuff to do - so in the matter of who we're going to pay money to actually come here and do our work - fuck it, I'm too busy for that."

[jeff061]

For the record I'm a job hopper with no college degree. Now I know 9/10 times I'm the best applicant in any huge pile because, yes, I am that good. And I'm an excellent interview.

However I'm sure those 2 reasons have killed my chances well before getting to that stage. It's the way it is. It's not a direct comparison obviously, because those are things I could control. However it does cause companies to miss out on me because they are simply trying to cut things down to a more manageable level.

It can be frustrating, but it doesn't bother me. I understand how it works. It's not personal,no one is saying that Jeff guy is worthless. The first round of cuts do not get that much thought put into them. It's not so much ideal as it is necessary.

[jeff061]

I'm surprised to hear that sentiment so often. I'm in a legal office (I think that would count as the real world, though it's not as numbers/busines oriented as a traditional business), and new hires are critical because a bad one can cause all kinds of problems that aren't easily corrected. So they take their time on the hiring decisions. Sure, there's some filters, but "currently unemployed" is a terrible one, IMO. It can be a factor - but as a blind filter, I think that's silly (especially if you only have 50 resumes, that's really not that many.) It's worth the time to make a good hire. I don't understand the opposing sentiment, "I got all this stuff to do - so in the matter of who we're going to pay money to actually come here and do our work - fuck it, I'm too busy for that."

Well where I've been there's no time to "make", unless you have the financial power to hire a team of dedicated recruiters.

I'm not even the hiring manager, I'm just a senior guy that pitches in on interviews and it costs me 8 hours a week(just for the ones that survived all the cuts). That's just me, then you need to count in management, HR and any other senior guy that may be on it. You don't just make time.

[molson]

Well where I've been there's no time to "make", unless you have the financial power to hire a team of dedicated recruiters.

I'm not even the hiring manager, I'm just a senior guy that pitches in on interviews and it costs me 8 hours a week. That's just me, then you need to count in management, HR and any other senior guy that may be on it. You don't just make time.

I'm not saying to need to interview everybody (interviews are a huge waste of time, as you said), but I can get through a stack of 50-100 resumes in a couple of hours (less time than 1 interview in some cases), and filter it down sensibily without using any blanket critera that automatically excludes obviously qualified people. That's time well spent. Why should I care if you went to college if your resume is strong? It takes seconds to look at your resume and see that you're qualified. A company that says they don't have time for that but then uses 3 current employees to interview 10 people is just dumb (and is probably hiring way more than they would if they hired good people to begin with).

[Lathum]

Well where I've been there's no time to "make", unless you have the financial power to hire a team of dedicated recruiters.

I'm not even the hiring manager, I'm just a senior guy that pitches in on interviews and it costs me 8 hours a week(just for the ones that survived all the cuts). That's just me, then you need to count in management, HR and any other senior guy that may be on it. You don't just make time.

Well then maybe the process is the problem. It seems to me if more time is spend on the front end of things you wouldn't have to repeat the whole process a short time down the road.

But what do I know.

[jeff061]

I'm not sure why you are assuming the process is being repeated? I may have overlooked that post.

[jeff061]

I'm not saying to need to interview everybody (interviews are a huge waste of time, as you said), but I can get through a stack of 50-100 resumes in a couple of hours (less time than 1 interview in some cases), and filter it down sensibily without using any blanket critera that automatically excludes obviously qualified people. That's time well spent. Why should I care if you went to college if your resume is strong? It takes seconds to look at your resume and see that you're qualified. A company that says they don't have time for that but then uses 3 current employees to interview 10 people is just dumb (and is probably hiring way more than they would if they hired good people to begin with).

Yeah, I don't know what your experience is. A resume is borderline useless. 100% of them are embellished and a good amount are fabricated. The interviews are everything.

[molson]

I'm not sure why you are assuming the process is being repeated? I may have overlooked that post.

I think he's saying if you make bad hires, you're just going to have to make more hires to replace them so you might as well invest the time.

Things could vary a lot by industry here too. (How easily replaceable people are, how much work you have to do to "correct" a bad hire).

[jeff061]

I think he's saying if you make bad hires, you're just going to have to make more hires to replace them so you might as well invest the time.

Things could vary a lot by industry here too. (How easily replaceable people are, how much work you have to do to "correct" a bad hire).

I understand what he's saying. I just don't know why he's assuming bad hires are being made. It's not like out of 60 people there's only 1 that will work out and you are playing Russian roulette. You are just trying to improve the ratio before more time is spent.

[molson]

Yeah, I don't know what your experience is. A resume is borderline useless. 100% of them are embellished and a good amount are fabricated. The interviews are everything.

Yes, I guess that would be a big difference in an open ended industry where you've never heard of any of the applicants. Reputation is a huge factor in legal hires, so that is a big advantage in the early screening process.

I can see interviews being critical in a sales job, not so much in a pure tech job, (and you can still embellish and fabricate in interviews.)

[jeff061]

I can see interviews being critical in a sales job, not so much in a pure tech job, (and you can still embellish and fabricate in interviews.)
This is why you bring peers in and not just the manager. I consult. My job is to grill them on their tech skills at a granular level and assess their personality to see if they can handle the stress and pressure of this biz.

[Lathum]

I understand what he's saying. I just don't know why he's assuming bad hires are being made. It's not like out of 60 people there's only 1 that will work out and you are playing Russian roulette. You are just trying to improve the ratio before more time is spent.

True, but you can decrease the amount of bad hires.

[molson]

This is why you bring peers in and not just the manager. I consult. My job is to grill them on their tech skills at a granular level and assess their personality to see if they can handle the stress and pressure of this biz.

Dumb question - if your comparny immediately screens out people without degrees and people who are unemployed, how did you get your job there? Or were you just using those two filters as an example? It sounds like this is a company that actually does put thought into it resumes it receives if it elevated yours.

[jeff061]

I was speaking generally. My specific company didn't. Though the job hopping always comes up(I did get grilled on it for my current job) and I think hurts me the most. College not so much anymore since I have a relatively desirable skillset and background. Back when it was more generic it was a larger issue.

[larrymcg421]

If you're automatically excluding people that are unemployed, then you're missing that guy that has 10+ years of exemplary work in the field but has been unemployed for the past year. I'd much rather have that guy than someone who is currently unemployed but has less experience, all other things being equal.

[JediKooter]

Yeah.... that's really not the way it plays out in the real world :).

Besides, when I said 60 I kind of meant that you had already tossed the clearly unqualified ones and were left with a relatively similar batch.

Cool, makes sense. :)

For the record, I have been the interviewer, but, not the screener or the person that makes the final decision. Though my input is part of the final decision. If I were to give a rough estimate on how long it takes from the time a person applies for the job to their first day on the job...3 to 4 months. Unless there is some super duper urgent immediate need to hire someone.

Depending on what industry it is, that career field can be a big factor too in the hiring process. In the IT/Software/Hardware engineering industry, job hoping is a very common practice and typically is not looked at as a negative factor. Other places it would be a red flag.

[jeff061]

In the IT/Software/Hardware engineering industry, job hoping is a very common practice and typically is not looked at as a negative factor. Other places it would be a red flag.
Hmm...then I must be an excessive job hopper :D.

I actually just flunked out on an interview a week ago(I think). HR interview, which I am actually awful at(I don't get them often though). Opening question was why I was unemployed for 3 months in 2000. I was making $6.50/hr then. She sat there and waited as I tried to formulate some type of response, which just threw me off my groove for the rest.

Seriously though, 2000? I had been 100% employed ever since.

[gstelmack]

For the record I'm a job hopper with no college degree. Now I know 9/10 times I'm the best applicant in any huge pile because, yes, I am that good. And I'm an excellent interview.

However I'm sure those 2 reasons have killed my chances well before getting to that stage. It's the way it is. It's not a direct comparison obviously, because those are things I could control. However it does cause companies to miss out on me because they are simply trying to cut things down to a more manageable level.

It can be frustrating, but it doesn't bother me. I understand how it works. It's not personal,no one is saying that Jeff guy is worthless. The first round of cuts do not get that much thought put into them. It's not so much ideal as it is necessary.

In many cases where a company is looking for long-term, stable hires, yes being a job hopper is a huge deal, since you are basically a rental to them.

[jeff061]

In many cases where a company is looking for long-term, stable hires, yes being a job hopper is a huge deal, since you are basically a rental to them.

Totally agree. Wasn't trying to say otherwise.

[JediKooter]

Hmm...then I must be an excessive job hopper :D.

I actually just flunked out on an interview a week ago(I think). HR interview, which I am actually awful at(I don't get them often though). Opening question was why I was unemployed for 3 months in 2000. I was making $6.50/hr then. She sat there and waited as I tried to formulate some type of response, which just through me off my groove for the rest.

Seriously though, 2000? I had been 100% employed ever since.

Maybe it's different on the east coast, you're in Massachusetts right? I've had (since 2000) 5 jobs and not once was I asked about switching jobs. However, I was asked, in my interview for the job that I currently have, why I was no longer at my last company. As soon as I told them I was laid off, it was never brought up again.

Damn, 11 years ago and she asked you that, especially if there's been no gaps since. That to me, that shows that the company isn't serious about hiring someone. I think you're probably better off not working there.

[jeff061]

Let's see. I'm on #8 since 2000 and am going through interviews for #9(not that HR fiasco). Truth be told I am being very picky now, if I land this it's high profile for a very prestigious company. Otherwise I really should bite my lip and grind it out a few years.

So yeah, I've been around :D. But you know what? 6-7 of those years are consulting, turnover goes with that line of work.

[BishopMVP]

I got calls for about 10 jobs in the 2+ month span. of those, about 6-7 went beyond the initial phone call. Of those, 2 went beyond the first face to face interview. One that I honestly thought I had nailed, nothing ever happened.
...
He told me if it's up to him, I'll be in the final group of candidates who will meet with the COO. Never got that call. Was the unemployment part of the issue? I'll never know. Do I feel it was? I guess yes. Either the Director Finance was lying to me, or he presented his case and the COO felt I was a risk based on prior employment.Not to entirely hijack the thread, but as a recent college grad I've done my share of job-searching the past couple years, and this is the only thing that annoys me. I couldn't care less if they throw out/ignore my resume for a trivial reason, and I don't hold any grudge if they choose to go in a different direction once they interview me. I should probably be more ruthless, but I wouldn't consider it right on my end if I was entertaining multiple overlapping offers since that would be wasting someone else's time, so if you interview me and tell me you'll be in touch shortly, at least have the decency to tell me you hired someone else. Either they don't want to take the minute it takes to email someone, or they want to keep me available in case its immediately apparent their initial hire won't work out.

[JediKooter]

Let's see. I'm on #8 since 2000 and am going through interviews for #9(not that HR fiasco). Truth be told I am being very picky now, if I land this it's high profile for a very prestigious company. Otherwise I really should bite my lip and grind it out a few years.

So yeah, I've been around :D. But you know what? 6-7 of those years are consulting, turnover goes with that line of work.

Oh man, you definitely got me beat. Being picky is a wise thing. Hopefully you'll get number 9. Sounds like it would be for more pay too, which is always a good thing. Oh for sure, consulting gigs can last from a few weeks to a few years, so turnover should be expected.

[SFL Cat]

Ahhh! Nice to see some things around this place never change...

[stevew]

The lack of even a form letter/email rejection is also pretty classless.

[jeff061]

The lack of even a form letter/email rejection is also pretty classless.

Funny thing is I got an email an hour ago with them wanting to talk to me over the weekend :D.

Whole thing has been weird and hearing nothing for over a week after that awkward interview is slightly off putting. But bottomline I have two great opportunities coming together at the same time. And if neither of them work out I am still doing pretty damn well where I am.

Good problems to have.

[wade moore]

I'm trying to find where I said, "if I guy is unemployed, he doesn't get considered".

I said that in the filtering process, an extended period of unemployment can be A filtering factor. If I've got 50 guys and 2 of them have been unemployed for 2 years but otherwise matchup with 25 of the guys, they're probably going to get filtered.

If I'm down to 5 guys, one is unemployed for a year, but has WAY better experience, he's getting interviewed.

FWIW - I've been clear to say extended unemployment. A couple of months is NOT extended unemployment imo.

[wade moore]

The lack of even a form letter/email rejection is also pretty classless.

Are you saying just if you apply, or if you get an interview and are not hired?

[stevew]

Interview-def
Application in general I can see it not being realistic. But if it was submitted electronically it can't require much effort to hit the "fuck you" button.

[flounder]

To give another personal story, I was out of work for about 4 months last year after I quit my job to take another position. The new job starting stringing me along on my start date, so I started looking elsewhere. I applied for jobs at 5 different places. Two were complete long shots where I really didn't fit what they were looking for. I was offered positions at the other three places.

I had a lot of things going for me in those three cases. I had quit my last job, I wasn't laid off or fired. I wasn't idle; I was actively pursuing a new job. I had a degree and certification that a lot of other applicants didn't have. I had experience that a lot of other applicants didn't have. When I was asked why I quit my last job, I told them where I worked and they understood completely.

The point of all of this is that I was offered these jobs over other candidates that were not unemployed. It's only an anecdote, but I think it makes sense that being unemployed is not going to kill your chances of getting a job even though it is a negative factor. If you're a great candidate, you will still get considered.

[wade moore]

Interview-def
Application in general I can see it not being realistic. But if it was submitted electronically it can't require much effort to hit the "fuck you" button.

Heh.

Again, there's some practicality here. The thing with online is, quite frankly, you often get bombarded with people - often those that are not even remotely qualified.

I know I personally give no response to people that I decide to not even give a phone interview to.

You absolutely should get back to anyone you make contact with though.

[Dutch]

No interview, but I submitted a resume to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1999 and they sent me my rejection letter on Bucs letterhead.


September 1, 1999

Dear Dutch,

Thank you for your interest in working for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. While I found your resume to be impressive, I regret to inform you we do not have any openings with the Buccaneers Communications department at this time.

I was, however, impressed with your qualifications and will keep you in miind in the event we need to fill any other positions in the near future.

Best of luck on your future purusits in the sports communications field.

Sincerely,
Reggie Roberts
Director of Communications


That's right, I framed it. :)

[BishopMVP]

Heh.

Again, there's some practicality here. The thing with online is, quite frankly, you often get bombarded with people - often those that are not even remotely qualified.

I know I personally give no response to people that I decide to not even give a phone interview to.

You absolutely should get back to anyone you make contact with though.This is my stance too - application I expect nothing (and I've heard the stories from people about how many applications they see for any job posted online), but once you personally contact me I think a form letter/email should be s.o.p.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I feel the same. Especially in the scenario I gave earlier I went through 2 of apparently 3 levels of interviews. I called the HR Rep afterwards as well, no call, no letter, no email. So possibly I am still being considered...although that was July.

On the other end of the spectrum, there was one I did get a letter from. I interviewed a Friday afternoon @ 2. I could tell in the interview it got awkward when I replied to the salary question. During the entire search, I always answered with what I was making before. I guess out of the range they were willing to pay.

I left there about 3. Monday in the mail I got the rejection letter. Unless the guy was in the office Saturday, he had to run back to his office and fill out the form letter immediately.

[Marc Vaughan]

Depending on what industry it is, that career field can be a big factor too in the hiring process. In the IT/Software/Hardware engineering industry, job hoping is a very common practice and typically is not looked at as a negative factor. Other places it would be a red flag.

I'd say it depends entirely on the company and position - personally I generally view people as long term hires for the company with few exceptions (normally contract positions for specific projects) .... as such job hopping is something which can potentially put me off a candidate.

(in general I feel it takes approximately 3-6 months for a developer to become fully conversant with our codebase to a stage where he's truly productive - as such if someone hops jobs every year or so he's not really going to be that good value as a hire)

The exception for this is that I generally cut people a bit of 'slack' for job hopping in their first few years in IT, simply because its relatively common to do it in order to get a promotion from being a junior or whatever at that stage ... if after 10 years in the industry you're still switching jobs every 12 months and you're not a contractor then expect to be asked 'why' ...

[Icy]

Out of my ignorance in the matter, I'm really surprised at this thread.

Of course it doesn't help me to understand it that i have been self employed for 13 years (since i left college without finishing my degree), never looked for a job, never hired somebody (besides freelancers) and that i live in a country with close to 20% unemployment rate and with very rare job switching rate (unlike what i have read in USA where it is way easier to switch jobs and where workers contracts are not as protected as in Spain)... but i always assumed that most of the people who were looking for a job were doing it because they were unemployed at that time, if you exclude those, then the remaining ones are just probably job hoppers that will leave your company as soon as they find a better offer, the same way they want to leave their current company.

If i was hiring and somebody came to me while working for another company, the first thing i would ask him is why is he looking for a job when he has one already (specially if in the same sector), and the only valid answer would be that he wants new challenges or to learn new things, and not just to earn more money, as i would be always looking at him like if he was going to back stab me anytime as he did to his previous employer. I think i would look at him with worse eyes than i would to the unemployed applicant, unless he has been unemployed for a long time without a valid reason, in which case i would agree more with this thread thoughts about it.

Again sorry for my ignorance on the matter, i have just learned that i would be an horrible jobs interviewer and if i ever need to hire somebody, i better let a professional to find it for me.

[Galaxy]

Interesting thread.

[jeff061]

When I'm interviewing(if I get it) as a job hopper I'm just honest. I go in depth on why I took each job and my thought process on why I'm interviewing for this one and let the chips fall where they may. I generally have put an extreme amount of in depth thought into this, which helps soften things a bit. In my 2 most recent interviews I was recruited and did not initiate things, so this helped.

As a side note, I'm expecting an offer letter tomorrow for the interview I thought I tanked(as a hopper) and am still a finalist for a second job, both seem to be coming together at the same time.

Should be an interesting week.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but i always assumed that most of the people who were looking for a job were doing it because they were unemployed at that time

I daresay the large majority of job applicants in the U.S. are people looking to switch jobs, rather than people not having one.

Or at least that would have been the case for most of the past 20 years at least.

Again sorry for my ignorance on the matter, i have just learned that i would be an horrible jobs interviewer and if i ever need to hire somebody, i better let a professional to find it for me.

Eh, doesn't sound like ignorance (in any negative sense) as much as just entirely different experience due to geography.

[RainMaker]

Interesting discussion. I've had my company for about 5 years now and have a few thoughts.

1) We do send an e-mail out if we go with someone else. But only to the people that we brought in for an interview. I always hated sitting around waiting to hear if I got a job or not so I think it's always nice to let the person know you went another direction so they can move on.

2) Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I've never cared if someone was unemployed. In fact, I don't care much about the stuff on the resume outside of it giving an overview of who is qualified. If anything I've had a bias toward people who aren't working and who didn't go to a good school.

One of our first hires was a programmer. We brought in a bunch of guys including one who seemed perfect on paper. Had a degree from Illinois, some great internships, great grades, certifications, etc. Figured he would be a done deal. But when we interviewed him, he was real pushy about what he expected salary wise, vacation days he needed, and a bunch of other stuff. I have no problem asking but it's all he wanted to talk about.

This other guy we brought in was actually sort of by accident. We called him first before we realized how many qualified people were sending in resumes. He was amazing in the interview. The guy dropped out of college and was more or less self-taught programming wise. But he was extremely passionate about it, talked about these forums he moderated in the field, pulled up projects/sites he had built. The guy was totally into this stuff and was desperate for an opportunity to get a stable job and not just be a freelancer (he had gotten married and they wanted to have a kid).

Well we hired him and he's been with us for a few years. He's great, works hard, is easy going, and seems to like it here. It sort of pisses me off when people categorize applicants based off things like how long they've been unemployed. Sounds like bullshit that HR departments do.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Allow myself to quote...myself...

I'll add my .02

I was unemployed this summer, a little over 2 months. The company I was with did not shut down or have severe cutbacks. IMO, I was a damn good employee, but there was a rather major issue I was in the middle of. I am not management level, but the rung below. I presented my case as far as what I did, why I acted in that manner, etc etc. After reviewing for a few days, I was let go. Pretty shocking to be honest. The first week after was pretty weird, I really didn't know what to think.

I got calls for about 10 jobs in the 2+ month span. of those, about 6-7 went beyond the initial phone call. Of those, 2 went beyond the first face to face interview. One that I honestly thought I had nailed, nothing ever happened. The other, which came about around a month after the first, I accepted.

In the 1st scenario, after meeting with HR the first time, I met with the Director of Finance. He basically told me he "loved my resume". I explained to him (as well as the HR rep) the situation with the last job. He told me if it's up to him, I'll be in the final group of candidates who will meet with the COO. Never got that call. Was the unemployment part of the issue? I'll never know. Do I feel it was? I guess yes. Either the Director Finance was lying to me, or he presented his case and the COO felt I was a risk based on prior employment.

This leads me into a question of my own.

My prior career history was 11+ years, all at the same company (3 different positions/sectors). The current position is at about 7 months. With that 2 month gap.

At what point is that gap no longer an issue with future opportunities? I realize the true answer is probably NEVER. But, after a year here? 2 years? 10 years?

Curious about the bolded part, in the eyes of those regularly doing some hiring.

[jeff061]

It's extremely subjective. I know I've argued for the side of filtering based on being unemployed but I was looking at it from a very high level. It doesn't really factor into my decision too much.

2 months? Personally I don't think I'd pay that gap any attention even if you were still unemployed. But everyone's different. You do need to explain why you were let go though, in a way that doesn't scare people off. I think that's more critical than the gap. If you were even able to get an interview I'd think you've overcome the gap, but possibly didn't explain it to their liking?

[wade moore]

Allow myself to quote...myself...



Curious about the bolded part, in the eyes of those regularly doing some hiring.

It's extremely subjective. I know I've argued for the side of filtering based on being unemployed but I was looking at it from a very high level. It doesn't really factor into my decision too much.

2 months? Personally I don't think I'd pay that gap any attention even if you were still unemployed. But everyone's different. You do need to explain why you were let go though, in a way that doesn't scare people off. I think that's more critical than the gap. If you were even able to get an interview I'd think you've overcome the gap, but possibly didn't explain it to their liking?

Yup. I have have painstakingly tried to say this over and over. The issue is extended periods of unemployment. 2 months after an 11+ year job is not an extended period of unemployment.

[RainMaker]

Allow myself to quote...myself...

Curious about the bolded part, in the eyes of those regularly doing some hiring.
I think you're over-analyzing it. There could be a million reasons why you didn't get a call. Maybe they found their dream candidate. Maybe they had a guy in mind and these interviews were just to appease a higher up that they did their due dillegence. Maybe the guy who interviewed you was blowing smoke up your ass.

Hiring at companies is so subjective. So many unseen variables that trying to pinpoint a reason will drive you insane. I doubt the 2 month thing had anything to do with it thought.

[EagleFan]

2) Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I've never cared if someone was unemployed. In fact, I don't care much about the stuff on the resume outside of it giving an overview of who is qualified. If anything I've had a bias toward people who aren't working and who didn't go to a good school.


Bravo!!!!

You are doing it absolutely correctly.

I was in a bad situation when I joined a company that was bought out and I was laid off along with many others from the company. Unfortunately it was a month and a half before I was to have eye surgery so I waited until after that before I got serious in looking (didn't want to go in saying "sorry, can't start for a coupl months). Unfortunately I ended up having health issues pop up not long afterwards (was in the hospital twice and the first time I missed an interview because of it).

When I finally got settled back in health-wise I started hitting brick walls because I was out of work for close to a year at that point. It took me another 8 months to finally land something. One person told me flat out that he was going a "different direction because of my job history". What I took as the best satisfaction is that I have been back for 8 years now and I know that other company has since hired 4 different people for that position as the others all left within a year and a half of being there. Unfortunately it took several years just to make up for the time lost (in savings, credit history, and salary).

The problem is the snowball effect. You are out of work and not being hired because of it. That's like saying "sorry, I can't feed you right now because you are hungry, come back when you aren't so hungry."

What the idiots that hire based upon that need to learn is that people who have been through that are going to be much more valuable to your company than others who haven't as they are going to do what is needed to make sure they don't have to go through that again.

Unfortunately they would rather take a shortcut instead of actually doing their damn job.

[Marc Vaughan]

Allow myself to quote...myself...

Curious about the bolded part, in the eyes of those regularly doing some hiring.

You'd be fine in my eyes - people make mistakes with joining a company which isn't as they thought it'd be and/or circumstances change.

Hopping once or twice (especially when you've been at other positions for a long period) isn't an issue.

(similarly if you're clear on the matter that a short term position was a 'contract' and not permanent one then that doesn't worry me at all - contract positions are often short-term and thats more than enough explanation)

PS - One thing though; if you had three different positions in the same company try and show through the CV layout that is the case, ie. emphasise that you moved/promoted within that company. That'll show the potential employer that the company valued you ... which is a good thing to keep in their minds (and it also avoids them potentially skimming the CV quickly and thinking that those 3 roles were all different jobs/companies).

[Suburban Rhythm]

You'd be fine in my eyes - people make mistakes with joining a company which isn't as they thought it'd be and/or circumstances change.

Hopping once or twice (especially when you've been at other positions for a long period) isn't an issue.

(similarly if you're clear on the matter that a short term position was a 'contract' and not permanent one then that doesn't worry me at all - contract positions are often short-term and thats more than enough explanation)

PS - One thing though; if you had three different positions in the same company try and show through the CV layout that is the case, ie. emphasise that you moved/promoted within that company. That'll show the potential employer that the company valued you ... which is a good thing to keep in their minds (and it also avoids them potentially skimming the CV quickly and thinking that those 3 roles were all different jobs/companies).

Thanks for the response.

For the resume, that is exactly how I show the 3 positions. They are in 3 different lines of business (company is 20,000+ employees). Each stop was minimum 3 years, and includes progression within that department (level 1, level 2, senior level, etc).

Sort of a followup question-- Going on 8 months at the new (entirely different company...and industry really), and it's not really a fit. So I am going to start looking somewhat seriously again.

I imagine the question will now become "You got let go from one position, and looking to leave this one under a year. What's the issue?"

And really, thinking if I was them, I'd have the same question. Once, OK, maybe it's the other guy who was "wrong". Twice? Maybe you (in this case me) are the problem. Fool me once, shame on you sort of thing.

How would you expect that do be spun? I have, IMO, valid reasons to be looking again...but how do I present them without seeming as if I am bashing the current place, never a good way to impress an interviewer.

[CU Tiger]

Curious about the bolded part, in the eyes of those regularly doing some hiring.

To me it would be a non-issue.

That said if it bothers you...you could always fudge a date on each side and make it seamless.

I personally never even ask for dates of employment beyond the year level when I call to background check an applicant.

To me I expect a certain % of salesmanship, fluff or down right BS in every resume I read. I just want to know if they are worth talking to...once I get them in my office then I am all about figuring out if they are A) qualified and B) a personality fit for our corporate culture.

[jeff061]

Is the 8 month stint from right after you were unemployed? If so I'd say something like:

I was out of work and was trying very hard to find a job, this position came up and I took it. In hindsight it was less than ideal(have reasons!!), but I was in urgent need.

I am now employed and my primary goal is to find a position that's a great fit and will continue that way for the years to come. I do not anticipate leaving my current position until I feel that condition has been met.

Or something, you almost spin it into a positive, that you are in a position where you will not leave unless you feel it's right. There's no desperation. Make sure they don't feel like you are resume spamming and will take the first offer.

[Suburban Rhythm]

To me it would be a non-issue.

That said if it bothers you...you could always fudge a date on each side and make it seamless.

I personally never even ask for dates of employment beyond the year level when I call to background check an applicant.

To me I expect a certain % of salesmanship, fluff or down right BS in every resume I read. I just want to know if they are worth talking to...once I get them in my office then I am all about figuring out if they are A) qualified and B) a personality fit for our corporate culture.

I'd rather be up front about everything, than to see an offer pulled last minute because of something that came up during a background check that didn't jive with what they originally expected.

Is the 8 month stint from right after you were unemployed? If so I'd say something like:

I was out of work and was trying very hard to find a job, this position came up and I took it. In hindsight it was less than ideal(have reasons!!), but I was in urgent need.

I am now employed and my primary goal is to find a position that's a great fit and will continue that way for the years to come. I do not anticipate leaving my current position until I feel that condition has been met.

Or something, you almost spin it into a positive, that you are in a position where you will not leave unless you feel it's right. There's no desperation. Make sure they don't feel like you are resume spamming and will take the first offer.

Yes, time line is let go late June 2010, started new (current) spot early September 2010.

And 100% honest, the #1 reason for taking the position is what you've said: At that time, it was the offer I got.

It has some other perks (15 minute commute, free parking), but not enough to keep me here. So my fear in spinning it that way is "well, if he jumped at the first offer before, and now wants out...what stops him from jumping from here in a year?" And they are probably entirely correct to question that, and I have no other backup other than to say I won't...but the track record would prove differently.

Maybe just being paranoid now that having never dealt with this before, the stigma of being unemployed for any period of time that is not related to mass layoffs is a red flag.

[jeff061]

"well, if he jumped at the first offer before, and now wants out...what stops him from jumping from here in a year?" And they are probably entirely correct to question that, and I have no other backup other than to say I won't...but the track record would prove differently.

You need to both detail why you want out and what you are looking for in a job. Be in depth as possible on both. You want them to leave with the perception that you have put a lot of thought into what you believe will be a better fit for you. Combination of those two should address that question.

And I wouldn't tailor it to the hiring company to much, that will sound like pandering, you want it to sound like you know what you want and aren't afraid to turn down companies that do not meet your expectations. Simply because you are not interested in loaning yourself, you are in it for the long haul. You also want them to think if you decide to turn down an offer you are secure where you are at. That while you are interested in a better opportunity, your company wants to keep you around.

You can't guarantee it would work for every company. But that is the tact I would(and have) take.

[RomaGoth]

Well, I have been unemployed since December 2010. I was laid off from an IT job after only 6 months, and the entire department I was in was eventually closed down. Came back to Idaho and have been unable to find anything at all. I interviewed in Colorado about a month ago but was not selected for the position, and I think it was because I don't have my degree yet.

I decided to go back to school and finish my degree, and I am in my last full semester now (still need one more math class this summer). I also stay home with my kids, three of whom are under the age of 6.

I am worried that this gap on my resume is going to hurt me, but there is not much I can do about it. I have applied for tons of jobs, but without a degree I just don't stand out against those that have their degree. But it isn't like I am sitting around on my ass either, I have been going to school full time since last August, I am preparing to take the insurance exam (p&c), and I am a stay at home dad as well.

It is all very frustrating, not being able to find work.

[gstelmack]

I am worried that this gap on my resume is going to hurt me, but there is not much I can do about it.

It's not a gap in your resume if you are taking classes and getting a degree. Just make sure the resume reflects that.

[KWhit]

2) Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I've never cared if someone was unemployed. In fact, I don't care much about the stuff on the resume outside of it giving an overview of who is qualified. If anything I've had a bias toward people who aren't working and who didn't go to a good school.


No offense, but clearly you have never hired in the business world before.

[/wade]


:rolleyes:

[jeff061]

At least not for a position that attracts many applicants.

[Galaxy]

Businesses behaving badly — to job seekers - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/03/29/businesses_behaving_badly__to_job_seekers/)

[jeff061]

The current job I am interviewing for has had me speak with 9 different people. And not all on one day, it's been spread out over a couple weeks.

If they decide I'm not the one and leave me in silence I may just kill someone.

[Galaxy]

The current job I am interviewing for has had me speak with 9 different people. And not all on one day, it's been spread out over a couple weeks.

If they decide I'm not the one and leave me in silence I may just kill someone.

9 people? Dear lord.

[jeff061]

Yeah. Someplace else gave me an offer, I pressed the place of 9 interviews to move things forward and they said they are busy and they'll call back later in week. I told them I'm getting ready to accept an offer from elsewhere but I really want to discuss this opportunity first....and not a word going on 4 days now.

So I'm just accepting the offer from the other place, I think that's how it would have played out anyways. But still, what the fuck, 9 interviews over 2 weeks and you can't even give me some sort of inkling on where I stand? They didn't even passively reject me, they actively say they want to talk but then don't talk. Maybe they think I was wasting their time, I don't know.

Pretty lame. They are a well known company.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So I'm just accepting the offer from the other place, I think that's how it would have played out anyways.

Good call IMO. Giving it a fair chance if it's a more attractive job is one thing, but at some point you legitimately reach the "yes?no?gotta go!" stage. You're there.

But still, what the fuck, 9 interviews over 2 weeks and you can't even give me some sort of inkling on where I stand? They didn't even passively reject me, they actively say they want to talk but then don't talk. Maybe they think I was wasting their time, I don't know. Pretty lame. They are a well known company.

Sounds a little like paralysis by analysis and/or they have problems making decisions ... although it might be as simple as the person you'd be directly under is out after knee surgery / had a long vacation coming up / has been fired & is being replaced, and no one wants to make the call without them.