Getting Over the Stigma of a Previous Job?

Subm asks: "Some friends-of-friends worked at a company with such a high profile downfall their past employer became a liability. They weren't involved in causing the downfall, but with the name 'Enron' on their resumes, interviews were spent defending their past employment. SCO is more focused in its industry than Enron, was and its reputation is in a downward spiral in that industry (Unix and GNU/Linux, not lawsuits, that is). SCO's staff will have to look for other jobs sooner or later, and most within the Unix/GNU/Linux community. Can good workers get over the stigma of an employer's reputation? How will working at SCO affect its staff's careers? Does anyone at SCO talk about this?"

Comments

I do see a problem for a tech.

[WindBourne]

With SCO accusing the OSS world of stealing their IP, many companies will be a bit fearful of hiring a tech. It is not beyond reason that evil axis may be trying to place programmers to introduce SCO (or someone elses) code.
The other issue that I see is anybody from Management should probably be avoided. These are the ones that took down Caldera, Unix, and SCO.

Don't know about SCO, but ...

[brokeninside]

I recall watching a news magazine program where they mentioned that certain former Enron employees were being snapped up right and left by other energy trading firms after the impending bankruptcy was announced. True, their salaries were much lower than at Enron, but they were still well above average for the industry.

I'd imagine that pretty much the same would hold for SCO employees. If nothing else, being a former SCO employee makes the question "why did you leave your last position?" very easy to answer.

Re:It's about skills, 99.9%

[GeckoFood]

If you can do the work, and do it well - - and you're reliable and honest and willing to take what's offered in the way of starting compensation - - many doors will open.

Not to be argumentative, but this is not necessarily always true.

A past employer can be an awful liability, especially in the case of a high-profile fraud situation or a combative company. Many times if you are a former employee you are "guilty by association."

It's somewhat similar to looking for a job and being overqualified. You have the skills, you can hit the ground running and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are the best damn candidate for the job. BUT... You have a PhD. The employer will snub his nose at you because you're overqualified. Does it matter that you are willing to take entry level and 60/hrs a week? Not really, because then they'll wonder why you're willing to work cheap.

Yes, your past credentials and associations matter.

Resume Madness

[|>>?]

IMHO you have got to be a first class moron if you determine whom you hire based on their previous workplace.

While that statement could be seen as inflammatory, perhaps I should share two examples to clarify my strong feelings on the subject...

• I was team leader for a computing help desk when we needed more staff. Our two candidates were a computer guy and a girl who had never touched computers, but had worked in bars, managed horses, run her own horse training company, and decided she wanted a change. She did a three month computer training course and applied for the job. I hired her because of her people skills, not her computing skills or her past employment record. With all her horse and bar skills, she was the best helpdesk operator we ever had.
• These days I run my own company and I needed a graphic designer. The one I now have is a professional industrial fisherman but has great design skills. As a fisherman, his past employment was irrelevant.

My point is this: If someone comes from SCO with a skill set that I need, they'll get the gig. If they prove to fail at their skill, they're likely to loose their job.

As an employer I care about results, not politics.

Will I hire Daryl? If I need a scum-sucking-bottom-feeder - or was that a fish?

Re:That's not really fair.

[hendridm]

Although you're probably right, this is what I interpreted as him having a role in hiring Darl:

We got through the really hard stuff, but at the end of the battle, you're still covered in blood. To move the company forward, it made a lot of sense. It was a mutual agreement: Let's get somebody new in. Darl (McBride) I knew from my work at Novell.

We knew we had salvaged a wonderful channel. We had great technology on the Unix side, wonderful customers and the UnitedLinux thing done. We'd set the stage to do the next step.

It's so ironic, the turn of events. (Caldera began discussing) what we can do through UnitedLinux to indemnify people who had used both Unix and Linux. Apparently, Darl took that in a little different direction than we intended.

He never comes out and says it, but he makes it sound like he was involved in the selection process. I had remembered it a little differently when I originally read that article.

Re:It's about skills, 99.9%

[saden1]

Well if you kept hearing that you are overqualified why not simply say "I tell you what, I'm willing to make a commitment to this company and sign a contract for X number of years." Make a commitment to work for them for certain amount of time that way they are assured that you want leave. Obviously they have the upper hand and you are locked into the job for that period of time but if the compensation is acceptable why not take the job and make a commitment? I've always thought that having a job is better than not having one.