Trying to hire and they are all "Drawing"

[Gale Hawkins]

The same ones that won't hire someone that's over qualified!! Anyone that's smart enough to be unemployeed for 2 years and still alive has something to offer. MikeD74T

OK let us change it from 'who' to 'why'.

Why would I hire someone that in two years could not find employment?

Why would I hire someone that is over qualified for the position?

 

[MikeD74T]

OK let us change it from 'who' to 'why'.

Why would I hire someone that in two years could not find employment?

Why would I hire someone that is over qualified for the position?

The person that did not find work for two years may be someone with high enough standards not to accept a position as a slave just because times are tough & employers are taking full advantage. Or that person may be very qualified (read as "over qualified') and may bring a lot more than the minimum knowledge to the job. Lots of middle management are afraid of smart people for fear of loosing their own position to that new employee. I would hire for those reasons,i.e. what they can do not just what they've been doing lately, their life goals, family committment, etc.. MikeD74T

BTW, I had an uncle named Gale Hawkins, from Springfield VT.

 

[dmccarty]

There was a report in the Wall Street Journal about being having problems finding a job much less a job for which they were trained.

One guy had two masters degrees. He used to be a manager in manufacturing.

He finally got a job.

He is the night janitor at a school. But as he said, he has to pay the bills somehow.

Later,
Dan

 

[sweettractors]

Just seen a advertisement on a Bowling Green, Ky TV station. The ad was a lawyer advertising that if you have been turned down for SS disability, just give her a call. She stated that she had a 95 % success rate in getting someone on disability that has been previously denied. This kinda crap just burns me up. It is like our gumment is driving down the road with the truck window rolled down and throwing out hundred dollar bills just for kix. Gee whiz, that is my money. Ken Sweet

 

[milkman]

The first SS disability application is almost always denied, the reconsideration too is almost always denied. If you're disabled, what are you supposed to do, just throw it on the top of the fridge and give up?
I went through the process three times, in '78 and '79, turned down twice, third try with a lawyer was success, then '80, guess who got elected and cut almost everyone off, went through the process again, two denials, third try with lawyer, got my benefits back, took 18 months, and oh yea, they only pay back a year. Went back to work in '89 and stopped SS. In '04 after two shoulder surgeries with no relief, reapplied for SS, same thing, two denials and third time, got it with a lawyer. The system sucks for those that deserve it.

 

[sweettractors]

The first SS disability application is almost always denied, the reconsideration too is almost always denied. If you're disabled, what are you supposed to do, just throw it on the top of the fridge and give up?
I went through the process three times, in '78 and '79, turned down twice, third try with a lawyer was success, then '80, guess who got elected and cut almost everyone off, went through the process again, two denials, third try with lawyer, got my benefits back, took 18 months, and oh yea, they only pay back a year. Went back to work in '89 and stopped SS. In '04 after two shoulder surgeries with no relief, reapplied for SS, same thing, two denials and third time, got it with a lawyer. The system sucks for those that deserve it.

My opinion is that the normal SS application process should go through the first time if the applicant is qualified. Think of all the money and time that was wasted because of the way the process works now. The gumment wastes tax dollars reprocessing 2-3-4 times and the lawyers get the back pay when it 95% goes thruough anyway. Ken Sweet

 

[Gale Hawkins]

About 8-10 years ago I read an article about retirement plans. I remember it making the statement that the number one retirement plan for white males without a college degree in the USA was to get on SS disability.

 

[PILOON]

Re overqualified:
Not always will you lose the person when better comes along.
I once hired an older fellow to be my controller at what I would call low for the job wages.
Simple, he was getting close to retirement, wanted to spend a month in Florida and some other 'perks' that he could not enjoy elsewhere.
Short work days was one other as he hated traffic.
Turned out to be the best thing I ever did.
While we both understood that the arrangement would be only for a year or two, he stayed with me for about 7 years, and that thru thick and thin times.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Re overqualified:
Not always will you lose the person when better comes along.
I once hired an older fellow to be my controller at what I would call low for the job wages.
Simple, he was getting close to retirement, wanted to spend a month in Florida and some other 'perks' that he could not enjoy elsewhere.
Short work days was one other as he hated traffic.
Turned out to be the best thing I ever did.
While we both understood that the arrangement would be only for a year or two, he stayed with me for about 7 years, and that thru thick and thin times.

That is a good example where it can work well.

When I think about overqualified I am thinking a person with a lot of experience wanting to apply for entry level position with entry level pay that will be working under people 15-25 years younger than they are.

A diesel tech working on small engines may or may not be an issue.

We have found flexible schedules (that still meets the need of the company) will go a long ways in making lower pay acceptable too. Staff knows when they are making all the company can afford and will accept the pay or move on if their needs are not being met.

Working conditions are important to many today over max $$$.

 

[johnrex62]

The person that did not find work for two years may be someone with high enough standards not to accept a position as a slave just because times are tough & employers are taking full advantage.

I would view a person with "high enough standards not to accept a position as a slave just because times are tough" to be a person with a bad attitude given the current circumstances and likely to be a poor employee. I want to hire someone who will do what I need done the way I need it and when I need it. I don't want an employee with enough attitude to try to run me the way they want my business to run. So, the person with High enough standards does not get hired by me. They will need a much better excuse to sit out two years than that.

Or that person may be very qualified (read as "over qualified') and may bring a lot more than the minimum knowledge to the job. Lots of middle management are afraid of smart people for fear of loosing their own position to that new employee. I would hire for those reasons,i.e. what they can do not just what they've been doing lately, their life goals, family committment, etc.. MikeD74T

Depending on the job and other circumstances, I can see not hiring an over qualified person. In an economy with lots of labor available, why hire a person who will leave you as soon as they find something more satisfying with more pay? I can understand the employer's reluctance.

If there are not enough qualified workers, then the over qualified make a much better choice unless the employer can afford to spend the time and money to train. Circumstances here make the difference.

I will grant that not all over qualified persons will jump ship at the first opportunity, since not everyone selects their job with the best pay or working conditions in mind. Some find job satisfaction in other ways. It is just a poor risk on the employer's part to accept someone who will very likely be a dissatisfied worker as a result of have the capacity of landing a much better jobs elsewhere.

I stayed out of work for over a year because I wanted to find a new job in my industry that I did not have to relocate for. My locale is not a hotbed for my specific line of work since the company whose software I support closed it local offices. As a result of their clients distribution, I was not successful in that and had to accept a job out of state for a few years until I able to land a job that supported multiple software clients via travel and remote work. It seemed acceptable to all of my interviewers when I explained that I tried my hardest to find work where I did not have to sell my new house and move my family away from school, friends and relatives. Of course, you can only live on savings and love so long before you have to make the hard choices.

I would absolutely hire someone who has been out of the workplace for a number of years, as long as their reason did not raise any warning flags about their potential suitability as an employee.