No recent work experience WTF???

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 07:48

A recruiter called me yesterday - he had my contact info in his inventory from a few years back. I told him I'm currently not looking but my wife is. He asked me when the last time she worked and I said it's been 1 year. He says to me "oh no, I only can use people with recent work experience"

WTF - the guy is a freakin recruiter. Those a-holes need inventory (resumes) as bad as anyone. Plus the fact that it's a freakin insult to say that to someone - at least lie and say "Send me her resume and I'll see what I can do"

In todays tight IT marketplace, what sense does it make for people to not consider someone who hasn't worked in the last year? Are they even aware of how difficult it is to land something?

Splain me - Am I off base?

Post by **Bubba** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:11

1. It's always easier to find a new job when you're still working at your old one.

2. Employers often look at potential employees who have been out of work for a while and immediately ask "why".

3. Employers may give explicit instructions to recruiters about only wanting people who are currently working or only very recently unemployed. Technology moves so fast that there may be the thought that if you're not working, you're not up to date.

4. Recruiters react to the types of clients (employers) they work with and this recruiter probably already knows his clients well enough to know their biases.

5. It's nothing personal - recruiters work for the employer, not for the recruit.

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:19

Bubba wrote:1. It's always easier to find a new job when you're still working at your old one.

2. Employers often look at potential employees who have been out of work for a while and immediately ask "why".

3. Employers may give explicit instructions to recruiters about only wanting people who are currently working or only very recently unemployed. Technology moves so fast that there may be the thought that if you're not working, you're not up to date.

4. Recruiters react to the types of clients (employers) they work with and this recruiter probably already knows his clients well enough to know their biases.

5. It's nothing personal - recruiters work for the employer, not for the recruit.

Edit: Any IT manager that has to ask why someone has been out of work for an extended period of time in the IT industry is basically an idiot and deserves to go through that same experience themselves.

So if you don't get lucky and land a job very quickly after being outsourced, you might as well start looking to get on welfare, I guess. Lovely.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:42

SkiDork wrote: Edit: Any IT manager that has to ask why someone has been out of work for an extended period of time in the IT industry is basically an idiot and deserves to go through that same experience themselves.

So if you don't get lucky and land a job very quickly after being outsourced, you might as well start looking to get on welfare, I guess. Lovely.

I disagree. Due to my age (or lack thereof), I've just recently (within the last year) completed several resume/interview/job fair workshops. The personnel conducting these workshops always said it is of the utmost important to explain why you have a lapse in work history. They mentioned one should inidicate the reason for this lapse either on their resume or as part of their cover letter.

I hope I never get put in such a position, because the job market is lethal in IT.

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:46

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
SkiDork wrote: Edit: Any IT manager that has to ask why someone has been out of work for an extended period of time in the IT industry is basically an idiot and deserves to go through that same experience themselves.

So if you don't get lucky and land a job very quickly after being outsourced, you might as well start looking to get on welfare, I guess. Lovely.
I disagree. Due to my age (or lack thereof), I've just recently (within the last year) completed several resume/interview/job fair workshops. The personnel conducting these workshops always said it is of the utmost important to explain why you have a lapse in work history. They mentioned one should do this either on their resume or as part of their cover letter.

I hope I never get put in such a position, because the job market is lethal in IT.

OK - will something like "I haven't gotten hired because if I'm lucky enough to actually get an interview I'm one of 500 going for the same job"
suffice?

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:49

SkiDork wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
SkiDork wrote: Edit: Any IT manager that has to ask why someone has been out of work for an extended period of time in the IT industry is basically an idiot and deserves to go through that same experience themselves.

So if you don't get lucky and land a job very quickly after being outsourced, you might as well start looking to get on welfare, I guess. Lovely.
I disagree. Due to my age (or lack thereof), I've just recently (within the last year) completed several resume/interview/job fair workshops. The personnel conducting these workshops always said it is of the utmost important to explain why you have a lapse in work history. They mentioned one should do this either on their resume or as part of their cover letter.

I hope I never get put in such a position, because the job market is lethal in IT.
OK - will something like "I haven't gotten hired because if I'm lucky enough to actually get an interview I'm one of 500 going for the same job"
suffice?

I'm sure it could be worded more appropriately, but I would think that would suffice. IT managers know the job market can be tough, but it's better to explain the lapse in work rather then let a recruiter/staff manager invision what the reason is.

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:51

I think my basic point is - in the old days it was very important to account for gaps in employment because jobs were so easy to get that gaps meant there was some strange reason for you not working. These days that is no longer valid as jobs are hard to come by in this particular industry. So some of these hiring douchebags are hung up in the 70s or 80s hiring mentality and think things need to be done the same. It ain't the old days any more folks.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Oct 18th, '06, 08:54

SkiDork wrote:
Edit: Any IT manager that has to ask why someone has been out of work for an extended period of time in the IT industry is basically an idiot and deserves to go through that same experience themselves.

It's a legitimate question. You can't assume anything. For all you know the guy took a year off to be a surf-bum.

On the other hand, unless directed to otherwise by management, I wouldn't disqualify anyone solely because they had the bad luck to get laid off and the further bad luck to not be able to get a job - as long as the time they've been laid off isn't excessive with respect to current market conditions. I'd question why someone hasn't worked in a year when there's a glut of IT jobs.

KBL Ed · Post by **KBL Ed** » Oct 18th, '06, 09:46

Recruiters are all idiots.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Oct 18th, '06, 09:49

dork,

You may have had a point in 2002, but I think you're severely underestimating the IT job market in 2006.

-steve

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 10:10

Steve wrote:dork,

You may have had a point in 2002, but I think you're severely underestimating the IT job market in 2006.

-steve

could be. Any data to back the claim up?

Alls I know is more job Ty is seeking has lots of applicants, according to the hiring folks. They could be lying..

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Oct 18th, '06, 10:14

SkiDork wrote:
Steve wrote:dork,

You may have had a point in 2002, but I think you're severely underestimating the IT job market in 2006.

-steve
could be. Any data to back the claim up?

Alls I know is more job Ty is seeking has lots of applicants, according to the hiring folks. They could be lying..

no data, just a lot of employed friends. and not a lot of unemployed friends.
it was the other way around in 2002.

-steve

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Oct 18th, '06, 10:14

SkiDork wrote:
Steve wrote:dork,

You may have had a point in 2002, but I think you're severely underestimating the IT job market in 2006.

-steve
could be. Any data to back the claim up?

Alls I know is more job Ty is seeking has lots of applicants, according to the hiring folks. They could be lying..

As far as I'm concerned, .NET dev's are in demand in my area. The IT job market is variable depending where you live. Is Ty trying in NYC?

Post by **SkiDork** » Oct 18th, '06, 10:20

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
SkiDork wrote:
Steve wrote:dork,

You may have had a point in 2002, but I think you're severely underestimating the IT job market in 2006.

-steve
could be. Any data to back the claim up?

Alls I know is more job Ty is seeking has lots of applicants, according to the hiring folks. They could be lying..
As far as I'm concerned, .NET dev's are in demand in my area. The IT job market is variable depending where you live. Is Ty trying in NYC?

Yes, she doesn't want to relocate. But I mean c-mon - it's not like we live in Kansas or something....

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Oct 18th, '06, 10:24

The way I see it, a year out of work is killing her and the angle she has to play is that she was out of work for a year BECAUSE she recognized that the demand wasn't there for the skills she had, and thus retrained herself in .net. She graduated from the program a week ago, and now she's looking again.

I know, captain obvious to the rescue, but there are a million .net jobs in nyc and long island, and less than a million .net developers. She should be able to find something, even at her age.

-steve