08.04.11James Cahalin, Sr. Account Executive, Energy Central

Article Viewed 1934 Times
11 Comments

Over the past few months I've been reading many articles on recruiting. Some have been geared towards recruiters, others for job seekers. Throughout many of them, a consistent theme emerges: unemployed workers are having a terrible time getting an invitation to interview.

I have a few friends who have been unemployed for months now. One was a co-worker of mine at a previous employer. He was the number one, all-time, top-producing salesperson in that company's history, out of more than 10,000 salespeople the company employed. This week he'll be going on his first interview after 14 months of searching. Someone with his skill sets, experience and track record should not be unemployed for that period of time, and he is certainly not alone. Unemployed does not mean unemployable!

I've heard of some companies not considering applicants that are not currently employed. I completely understand the logic behind this, as it is a recruiters market to hire -- although employers will pay more for workers who are already in the workforce. Though this approach may be perceived as "what's best for the company" it's certainly not what's best for America. Companies have every right, and by all means should, look to hire the best. Just because a person is unemployed, however, doesn't mean they are not a potential asset to your company. Take my friend above, one of many "A" players who is currently unemployed.

As a recruiter, you have a duty to your company to fill vacancies. As an American, I would argue, you have a civic duty to be open-minded, and a legal obligation to not discriminate in your hiring practices. Not even considering someone who is unemployed for an interview IS discrimination.

Growing up with four older brothers, I have an unusually high competitive drive. Whether I'm competing with my co-workers, my friends or my family I hate losing. Because of this, I firmly believe that human resource professionals should hire the best person for the job. Their race, religious beliefs, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. should not be a deciding factor. Whether they are currently unemployed should not be a deciding factor either.

Let me make this point another way: Soldiers with honorable discharges, who have served our country in multiple wars on multiple fronts, are also having a terrible time finding employment in the private sector.

We were once a country where the word "community" had meaning. We have forgotten that in the past few. Sure, there are parts of the country where a sense of community still has meaning. We saw it firsthand this past May in Joplin, Missouri. People were so willing to help out that the Red Cross was able to completely shut down their temporary shelters in a very short period of time. We should applaud those families that opened up their homes to the families that were in need.

I read an excerpt this morning from a book published by a large recruiting firm. It was written for job seekers and one of their main questions to "be ready to answer in an interview" was: "Why are you looking to leave your current job?"

Unemployment jumped again last month to 9.2 percent. [That is merely the official unemployment figure, which disguises those who've taken work far below their last position, those who've accepted part-time work and those that have given up looking. Some analysts believe the real unemployment rate is above 15 percent.] Reading this fact, which was posted this morning on a major news source's website, got me thinking. It also got me a little mad. Shouldn't we, as citizens of our country, be doing everything we can to help lower unemployment and help improve our economy?

I'd suggest some structural changes in how corporate HR departments evaluate candidates. Companies look for many qualities that can't really be relayed properly on paper. It is difficult to judge leadership abilities from a resume. It is difficult to judge creativity from a resume. I would argue that it's not even possible to judge intelligence from a resume. (A candidate's grade point average is NOT an accurate measure of actual, real-world intelligence.) It is difficult to judge character and personality from a resume. It is utterly impossible to judge a candidate's potential for greatness from a resume.

I should know. I'm a real-life example of all of these. The only reason I got a call from Energy Central when I was looking for employment was because I went to school at Penn State and the person who recruited me went to Ohio State. In fact, the first thing he said when I answered the phone was: "I typically steer away from ex-mortgage brokers, but I thought I'd give you a shot because you went to Penn State." Three interviews and three years later I'm still here.

With millions looking for work it's very easy to skip over those who don't have the resume that perfectly fits your stated requirements. This is unfair to the candidates and it's not helping solve the unemployment problem. Recruiters have the ability and the power to change this. As a recruiter, you can make a difference. Just because someone isn't currently employed doesn't mean they wouldn't be a motivated, strong worker at your company. In fact, a hard worker with a taste of unemployment and its difficulties may become your most motivated worker.

Also, the straitjacket of qualifications has tightened ridiculously in recent decades. Just because a candidate doesn't have the requisite length of experience, doesn't mean that they don't have the aptitude for the job. Just because someone doesn't have the necessary certifications (a process that may be as simple as applying, paying $21 for processing and waiting 30 days) doesn't mean they aren't the best candidate for that role.

Following my advice will require more time, but the level of talent and the track records of our unemployed workers right now is unparalleled, simply because there are so many of them. On the first cut, call as many people as you can. Give them a call. Base your decisions on a conversation and not a piece of paper. You will end up with a better employee for your efforts. Happy Hunting!

"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth." Muhammad Ali

We know you have something to say!

There is an immediate need for articles on the hot topics in the Power Industry! EnergyPulse, like no other publication, also provides a means for our readers to immediately interact with experts like you.

Contribute Today!

Please view our Author Guidelines and send submissions to the editor.

Reader's Comments

Date	Comment
Ferdinand E. Banks 8.4.11	As somebody said, "there are no bad regiments, just bad officers". The US is in the situation that it is in because it reelected George W. Bush. Everyone should understand that, and maybe repeat it a few times every day. Had that not taken place the incompetent Mr Obama would probably not be president, and the US might have a president who is more than PR. Of course it could have been worse: had John McCain and Sarah Palin taken charge, Anyway, I hope that things work out in the next election.
Than Nguyen 8.7.11	As an IT recruiter in Dallas, I definitely agree that human resource professionals should hire the best person for the job. Their race, religious beliefs, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. should not be a deciding factor. Whether they are currently unemployed should not be a deciding factor either.
Darby Hanson 8.9.11	Sorry Mr. Banks, but you are wrong. Do you think Al Gore were have handled the terrorist attack better? Do you really think a McCain presidency would have been any worse the current one? I think it would have been mostly the same (McCain is just another big-government knows best crony). Besides, you are the economics professor and should know better. The financial collapse was caused by excessive debt, along with loose money policy from the Fed Reserve. That debt was championed by many past presidents and congesses of BOTH major political parties. All that was needed was for one card to slip from the house of cards and the collapse began. I think the trump card was the oil price climb. As soon as fuel prices hit about double, people started skipping payments, etc. First went the sub-prime loans, which I think started things slipping, then the fuel prices climbed. After that, all heck broke loose due to all of the mortgage-backed securities tied to the bad mortgages. Correct? The problem we have now is not going to go away anytime soon. There are far too many people still in power in Washington DC that believe they can fix the problem with ever more government intrusion into everyone's business. They're creating money based on nothing, spending money they don't have, and continually crank out reams of new regulations that do nothing but stifle the entrepreneurs. The government is the problem and has been for a long time. It does nothing but suck limited resources out of the private economy and create paper money with decreasing purchasing power. This hurts anyone trying save, and forces us into more risky investments in order to at least match real inflation. Then comes the inevitable asset bubble of the season, and everyone looses again.
bill payne 8.9.11	The Energy Dielimma may be useful? http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/davidson/davidson.pdf
Ferdinand E. Banks 8.12.11	Thank you for your comment, Darby, which I regard as unadulterated foolishness. There are probably many explanations for the sad state that we find ourselves in now, but if I could choose only one, it would be George W. Bush. Starting a war on the basis of a lie is nothing new, but winning the war and continuing to treat us to a lot of ignorant chatter about freedom and democracy, while ruining Iraq economically and socially, is really too much. As for your statement about the government being the problem, I encounter that kind silly populism all the time. Bill Clinton left office with a positive current financial surplus, and Bush left the US economy in a state that Obama could not possibly have cured - even if he were a competent president, which is precisely what he is not.
Darby Hanson 8.16.11	Mr. Banks, blaming all of our woes on GWB is getting a bit stale now -- I find that to be utter foolishness. Do you have an actual economic explanation for current conditions? Did Reagan inherit a set of economic conditions that were much different than what Obama inherited? Didn't Congess, including many Democrats, vote in favor of the Iraq war? I do agree that the whole "nation building" was/is a foolish waste of our resources. As to my "silly populism", I guess that is your opinion. Some of my "unadulterated foolishness" can be attributed to the Austrian school of economics and basic Libertarian views I have held for many years. If you ever lose your ivory tower position, you might end up down here at my level. Then you may begin to understand the frustration of the masses. After working many years, you suddenly find out that there are no jobs for you (getting back to the subject of the article). This situation was caused by malinvestment of scarce resources due to political medling by those in government. This leads to a "level of talent and the track records of our unemployed workers right now is unparalleled". Therefore, all of the HR folks are looking for absolutely anything they can find in order to weed out applicants. Perhaps even foolish comments on Energy Central. I will continue to read your articles, Mr Banks, but mostly for your writing style and to learn energy economics. The rest I will ignore. Unlike you, I seek to learn new things from many sources. You seem to form a "higher than thou" opinion from amongst your academic circle (mostly socialist) and then seek to demean those of us in the lower classes that disagree.
Len Gould 8.22.11	Darby. For a quick revue of genuine detailed reasons for the recent economic meltdown, see the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 .Written, sponsored and pushed through by three repiblicans, it essentially removed all constraints on the banking / insurance system, including specific wording to the effect that "The SEC shall at no time and for any reason, initiate investigations into the producing or trading of derivitave securities etc. etc.". It was the primary if not sole cause of the housing bubble, worldwide bank problems, and the resulting financial mess.
Len Gould 8.22.11	Combine that with the GWB tax reductions on the wealthy, and anyone not living from the proceeds of trust fund wealth must be quite insane to vote repiblican against their own best interests.
Len Gould 8.22.11	"Although the Federal Reserve is not the primary supervisor of the majority of U.S. commercial bank assets, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 it serves as consolidated supervisor of all bank holding companies, including financial holding companies." "Provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act limit the ability of the Federal Reserve, as consolidated supervisor, to examine, obtain reports from, or take actions with respect to subsidiaries" Two quotes from a recent speach on the financial crisis by Ben Bernanke. It is significant the that act is the ONLY item of legislation referenced throughout the text. May 7, 2009 - Lessons of the Financial Crisis for Banking Supervision - Ben Bernanke
Darby Hanson 8.24.11	Len, I don't doubt that the legislation you mention contributed to the meltdown, but there are/were many factors. I am not smart enough to understand the whole derivatives market world, but I understand it to be huge and largely unregulated (still?). You somehwat made my point - the government meddled with the markets, one way or another, and they created a bigger problem. Regarding your "tax reductions on the wealthy" statement, I'll have you know that I am far from rich, and I have enjoyed keeping the few hundred extra dollars I earned for each of the last several years. WE ALL GOT A TAX BREAK! I just found www.usgovernmentrevenue.com to confirm that revenues in fact were climbing every year after the dotcom bust from a low of about $1.8T in 2003 to a high of about $2.6T for 2007. It looks like 2008 would've been even higher if the meltdown didn't happen, but it was still over $2.5T. The very simple fact of the matter is that the US Federal Government (and most of the state governments) have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This problem will not go away until there are enough sane congress critters elected. By sane, I mean that they have to understand that simple problem and the only solution is to reduce the size and scope of the out-of-control beast we call our Federal Government. And yes, that means total elimination of at least several non-constitutional departments, such as HUD and Education, to name just 2. And, it would be nice if the current president would not have gotten us into yet another war we can't afford, particularly when the Congress did not authorize it. I've "said" enough here for now. Good day.
Len Gould 8.25.11	Darby: "the government meddled with the markets, one way or another, and they created a bigger problem." -- Wrong. The government WAS IN the market, as a strong regulator, prior ro Gramm-Leach-Bliley. What the "government" did to cause the problem, was to remove the rational regulation already in place. There is simply no debating that in the US, since Reagan, the wealthy have paid PROPORTIONATELY less and the "less wealthy" such as yourself, have paid PROPORTIONATELY more. Speaking of enough, what is your position on "how much governemnt" is enough? A military which spends 10% of GNP, but no local police? All children home-schooled? All roads everywhere build on land acquired privately by corporations, and maintained and paid for by private industry? Well, what then? And what absolute level of government revenue should be required to pay for that "your opinion" perfect level of government?

Do you agree or disagree with this article? Send in your own article.

Add your comments:

Please log in to leave a comment!

back to top