Slashdot Mirror
U.S.Laws May Make Online Job Hunting Harder
j00bar writes "CNN/Fortune is reporting that applying for a job online is going to get harder. 'New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect starting today for jobs at federal contractors -- and similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees. And resumes and search approaches that worked perfectly well before may no longer do the trick.'"
Sigs cause cancer.
So in order to get a more diverse and random selection of applicants, we're going to shrink the qualified applicant pool by making it more difficult to apply for a job? Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to increase diversity? I would think that if you want a more diverse selection, you would want to increase the qualified applicant pool so you have more people to choose from.
It is our place and decision to run online employment boards how we see fit and put up descriptions of our jobs and post our skills to our own likings. We are free to find the people who we think may be good at the job by looking at their resume
Plus, what the crap, if I "apply" for a job online they look at my resume and they talk to me, they setup and interview. Now if some @#*(%& employer hires an employee purely based off what is said of a bleeding website then they deserve a crappy employee.
IMHO, of course.
Menya zovut Shnur
Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.
Good one.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Searching and applying for jobs online is already difficult enough. With applicant pools numbering in the thousands for many jobs, it's already a royal pain in the ass to get in for an interview. Aside from that, even if you do get an interview it might be one of those "well, we know we won't hire this one but we need to interview X number of people" and you end up being asked such illustrious questions as "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?" (yes, an actual interview question for a part-time job at $8.50/hr).
Keep your resume up-to-the-minute current. "The rules allow companies to pick a random pool of applicants by searching the job boards for 'most recent' qualified applicants," Crispin notes. "In those cases, no one will even look at a resume that is more than two or three weeks old." Yikes.
Oh whatever, if the company is looking for someone with experience that most don't have they are going to look closely at the resumes. If anyone can do the job in the applicant pool they aren't going to care one way or the other.
For the jobs that I have interviewed for through monster.com and careerbuilder.com applications, I have received a few offers -- none of which bettered my current job security and benefits (the pay was better).
We don't need laws to make it more difficult to find work -- we need laws that make the jobs we have better than they already are.
To totally hose a good system to make it "fair" to people. Sorry, applying for jobs is not a "random" process. Both the worker and the company want what is best for them. picking people at "random" hurts the applicant and the company by bad pairings. way to go dc, inefficency is key!
an applicant must "express interest" in the job
Surely you wouldnt work in a place you have no interest in!
Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
This is a big deal and the only reference is this story. I could find nothing else. The story doesn't answer the diversity subject. BS I say.
At first, then it is rolling out to all eomplyers with over 50 employees.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It seems they are going to regulate this country to the point where it's impossible to find a job. When's the last time any of the people making all these stupid laws actually tried to get a job? In the olden days you could walk into a place with a help wanted sign and get a job that day and just work - maybe for just that day or maybe for twenty years. Now it's so expensive for companies to hire people and such a risk for them to give someone a try that they often don't fill vacancies for great periods of time and only then when they find an applicant that has exactly the needed skills and referenced. No more picking someone with some skills and the ability to learn and just training them. God no - they could turn out to be a moron or lazy and you can't fire them because it's such a nightmare to do so. The number of unemployed in this country is pretty huge and the time a lot of people can go unemployed can be many months and it all comes down to all the red-tape involved.
It's great to protect people from shitty employers but not a good idea to create so much red tape that you're keeping a significant number of your citizens from finding work. All this red tape is a good part of the reason temps and illegals are so popular as employees.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
There are a lot of scare phrases in that article which are typically used to drum up business for consultants. I would talk to your Legal Dept (for a bigger employer) or CPA (for a small employer) before trashing every resume in the Inbox.
sPh
We should rename this place "The land of chicken little" because the sky is always falling here...
It is also illegal to hire an illegal alien in the US. How many businesses got fined for doing that last year nation wide? The answer is somewhere between 1 and 0. This will be ignored.
What would happen, if I just tell them that my grand-grand-grand father came from Africa so deep down I feel like I am part of a minority?
Actually I never check the "White" or "Caucasian" box on the race section on the forms, because putting myself in a race category just reinforces the fact that there are race categories and people are somehow treated differently because of it. Actually the word "Caucasian" comes directly from studies of eugenics at the turn of the century and I consider using it just as offensive as someone using the "n"-word, because it implies endorsing the values and attitudes of the time.
My God folks, the article offers no clue whatsoever about where this supposed set of rules is coming from. No Legislative reference, no Government department - Nothing.
Then it spins into a collection of rather bizarre "tips" for job applicants, most of which don't really seem to have anything to do with the alleged changes in government hiring practices, or even reality.
Even for slashdot this is pretty weak.
Three Squirrels
Back in 2000 I was searching for a job. I saw a listing. With all the other criteria there was one that said "7 years Windows 95 experience" WTF. That would mean someone would have to have been using Win95 since 1993. Now I know there were betas running around back then and I had one of them at the time but other than me and a few other techies would have actually have had that experience?
Also having to have exact skills to the job listing would increase the ammount of people lieing on their resumes which means that employers no long could trust that the resume was valid.
Support our Troops
Impeach our President
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
So you're saying that because generations of EUROPEAN whites engaged in villainous acts, it's ok to punish their ancestors?
What's that saying about two wrongs...
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I think we can all see from real-world examples such as Wal-mart how necessary this is. Corporations are out to make a dollar, the only reason they have in the current market to keep their workforce diversified is to avoid getting sued. Hopefully this will make sure that more subtle discrimination is kept in check.
What nonsense. If a corporation was only hiring people "to make a dollar," then they'd only hire the most effective, efficient people possible. You know, hiring people based on their actual merit. For that matter, if "making a dollar" is partly accomplished by lowering your overhead, then hiring the people willing to work for the least (in non-demanding retail positions, for example) would also be standard practice... and based on demographics, that would disporportionately result in the hiring of minorities and recent immigrants. So, no need to worry about quotas, right?
Or, am I confused about what you think is the "subtle discrimination" as it relates to how a corporation "makes a buck?" How, in your view, does discrimination help a large corporation actually make a buck? Or are you making a very sly, dubious, stealthy comment implying that minorities aren't as able to help an employer make a buck? Make some damn sense, or be more honest about your biases.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In many cases, government jobs are already required to be advertised widely, and candidates must be considered on the basis of their qualifications. This means, that if you have your golfing buddy in mind for the job, all you have to do is make sure the qualifications listed match his (and only his) profile. Now, if applicants have to conform to the qualifications 100% this is a much, much easier process. Imagine a wanted ad like "senior business consultant with 13 years experience in federal auditing blahblah and a minimum of 3, but no more that 4 weeks of experience in an abbatoir", or whatever crappy holiday job the schmuck had.
......"
Of course, if you do want to give a lot of people a shot, you just state "requirements: carbon based lifeform, literacy" and "the following are a plus:
So, really, this helps the government hiring cheats.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
The effect here will probably be to drive companies to third party recruiters, who will do the direct interaction with the applicant.
Why? Because candidates are not going to reword their resume for every employer--that's tremendously expensive for the employee. Also, many qualified applicants probably won't have the skills to "search engine optimize" their resume to get noticed. And companies won't want to fall afoul of the law, so they're unlikely to relax rules and "read between the lines."
This will probably create a huge market opportunity for companies who will handle the minor changes from job to job--they will search the big job boards (like Monster), find jobs matching your profile, and send you a list. You tick off the ones you're interested in, and they will make the minor changes to your resume to make sure you line up properly.
Congress passes these ever more bigoted laws (in the name of diversity of course, gotta love NewSpeak) so they can feel good about having 'done something' about a problem that increasingly is made worse by more laws because it has been mostly solved. We long since passed the point where the negative impact of more laws were outweighed by the positive benefits. Thirty-forty years ago, yea, there were some serious problems still lingering in society. We talked a good "everybody is equal" but practice didn't match theory very well.
But these days we have, if anything, overshot equality and went to tribalism amok. These days it seems the only ones who quotes King's "I have a Dream" speech's line about judging everyone on their ideas instead of their skin is Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich because the entire 'Civil Rights' establishment has invested all their political capital on maintaining quotas and pretending to be victims while having all the trappings (limo, jets, mistresses, etc) of the wealthy. Listen up folks, when (in theory if not in practice) the left, the right and just about everyone in between are in agreement on an issue it really isn't much of an issue anymore. The only reason it is still an issue is because too many people have made an industry out of "Oprah Nation" style victimhood as career.
Democrat delenda est
Hurrah - someone with research skills!
7 6.htm
7 .html
The actual rule:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/20050201
Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement Purposes
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060207-612
Do you know what the OFCCP is? It is the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and that little taste of bureaucratic alphabet soup is a part of the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration. The OFCCP's job is to ensure "that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination." In essence, that makes the OFCCP one of the many departments that exist within the government to monitor activities and make sure things are done properly and fairly. A noble goal, to be sure, but the OFCCP has distinguished itself with a new rule going into effect this week regarding the tracking of those who apply for jobs on the Internet, and it may have repercussions for anyone using electronic means to search for a new career.
Three Squirrels
Sorry, but you do not have a RIGHT to a job. And especially to any PARTICULAR job. You only have the right to compete for the position. But what's REALLY boggling my mind is this is coming out of an administration that is supposedly so far in bed with business interests, that the resultant child is several weeks overdue. . . .
...an overbearing, overweening, unresponsive , unaccountable government.
*You* elected 'em.
Think before voting, next time.
Try holding your fave politicians ACCOUNTABLE for once. Sure, career bureaucrats are responsible, but they are told what to do BY CONGRESS.
- A disgusted native-American male-lesbian libertarian activist
In spite of:
.NET, VB, SQL Development
- 20 years professional experience.
- 7 years IT manager
- C, C++, C#,
- 10+ years project management
No interviews or contact whatsoever.
The only way to really get response is through personal and direct contacts with firm you are interested in.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Good Morning Citizen!
Friend Computer has randomly chosen you! Yes, YOU CITIZEN! out of all the applicants for reactor-core cleaning duty!
Kind of makes you wonder why anyone bothers to vote for the GOP anymore.
Remember, it's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes!
I have Advanced Cover Sheet, Level 2, certificate, please hire me!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
here
This Annie person ought to be fired, IMO.
For the applicant we are saying "let us know if you have these things, but still apply if you don't."
The idea is that the more accurately the applicants understands the requirements, the more effective they can be at communicating their suitability.
I recommend this approach to everyone. Oh, and don't let human resources write, or even stongly edit, your ads for you. I'm not saying they're morons, you understand (heaven's no), but they'll put in crap like "We are looking for a self-motivated team player with excellent communication skills seeking a challenging position in a dynamic, cutting-edge company". Ack.
Guess it's time to add the old "P.S. I'm deaf" to my applications? I've noticed in the past whenever I mention my hearing I get ZERO responses... when I leave it out I often get interviews or an email asking for more info. Regardless, once they find out I never hear back from them. I even had a friend who was a (non-tech) recruiter and showed it to someone at their office who covered the tech jobs. "Wow! Great stuff, can't wait to meet him!" then he HAD to say "Oh, but there is one little thing"... I never heard from them. Now he knows never to mention it either. So what shall I do? If diversity is required why aren't they all over me? Anybody with more experience on this kind of thing have some advice for me? How do you tell them?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
My ancestors were European peasants as far back as we can trace it (the 30 years war, around the time of the Mayflower). They did not enslave or harm anybody, they were mostly trying to scrape together a living while armies marauded through Europe, and I would say that that's the typical European ancestry. You can't blame your troubles on me or my ancestors.
But many of those "white Europeans" that you are so fond of complaining about didn't come to the US to rape and pillage, they were facing starvation or execution (often for petty offenses) in Europe and were effectively also slaves in the US; when they finally managed to free themselves, of course, they did whatever it took to survive. Likewise, many (most?) of those Africans that were sent to the US as slaves weren't captured and transported by white Europeans, they were enslaved and shipped over to the US by other Africans.
Finally, I ask you: what notions of human rights and liberty have non-Europeans produced? Prior to the age of European empires, much of the world consisted of traditional tribal cultures, and the few big cultures like India and China were ossified, stratified, and had made racism and classism an integral part of their culture. If you view Islam as a non-European culture, then it has perhaps the closest claim of any of the other cultures to recognizing human rights and liberty, but that's a distant second to what European philosophers and humanists produced.
Besides, one of my German great-grandparents was a Jew, and one half of my Dad's Italian ancestry is Black African in origin.. Should I then claim Asian or Black?
Heck, my wife is a Black Angolan immigrant. Our son is technically "African-American" since his mother is African and his father American... but he's not really an "African-American" as that term is usually understood... so where does this madness stop?
It also defines an applicant as someone who meets ALL the qualifications listed. This has the implication that if you miss on just one, an HR department can't consider you.
Drop out of college in the '70s just short of a degree to pursue your consulting practice or carreer (when a 4-year degree was considered a handicap) and work yourself up into a 6-figure income and a position in the top of your field by hopping between consulting and salaried positions for 30 years as you became one of the people that invented the technologies the colleges are just now trying to figure out how to teach? You better have a rep good enough to support yourself as a consultant or in startups from now on. Because starting in a few months you won't be considered for a salaried position at ANY company of over 50 (unless your contacts there can hammer the HR department to put "or equivalent experience" after the masters degree requirement.)
The one good thing that MIGHT come out of this is that it will force HR departments of large companies to cut back on the practice of over-demanding.
This is university-educated drone's welfare and hi-tek job export program.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For the love of Mike, people, READ THE FRICKIN' PDF!
7 6.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/20050201
The rule is for FEDERAL CONTRACTORS!!! Hello, can anyone read around here. This does not apply to NON-FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. Again, READ THE PDF. It's prefereable to having morons posting comments.
Take a 1 mile walk from a primarily black and latino flatlands Oakland Ca school, where the average school size is 600 -700 kids in a K-5 elementary school and where the average teacher at some schools has LESS THAN TWO FRICKIN YEARS of teaching experience and where some 5th grade kids I know have had first year teachers every day they have been in school, to a primarily white and asian hills school where average school size is 350 kids and average teacher experience is upwards of 15 years, and where the teacher salary differential means the average DISTRICT spending is over $1,000 per year per kid more and outside funding is also nearly $1,000 per student per year greater, and then tell me about institutional racism. Get as outraged about that as you are about 'institutional racism aagaisnt whites', and I may believe you actually care about institutional racism, and are not just whining about a minor bit of personal barrier you marginally encounter after being given a massive advantage agaisnt many, many potentially competitive kids who get destroyed in those institutionally disadvantaged schools. Until then (and yes, I'm being disruptively rude here; live with it. This kind of shit pissed me off.) just f*ck off.
When is it my turn to cash in on the affirmitive action jackpot?
Why do employers demand you tell them your gender and race, but the employers are forbiden to even ask for your age?
In IT especially, age discrimination is far more prevelent than gender or race discrimination.