Why won't they hire?

[billvon 2,426]

>The piles of cash suggest not hiring very much at all.

Or investment in things other than more labor.

Note - when you hear about companies "sitting on piles of cash" that's a euphemism; they don't really sit on piles of currency. That "cash" is in the form of investments in the market, or in real estate (their own factories/buildings or others) or in other companies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

US companies are sitting on piles of cash. Until something forces them to invest in THIS country, we will continue to have a serious waste of human potential.

So how do you propose to loosen it up?

The banks are told they must now keep greater cash reserves than they did in their overleveraged past. (remember, when as you like to say, they took risks and killed the economy) And the non banks know there's less, so they're also going to be more conservative lest they get caught in a liquidity crisis. So before you even get to the economic sentiment reasons for hording money, you've lost quite a bit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK for the last nine months I have been looking for work as a molecular biologist in the DC suburb area (the Bio-Capital area for biotech companies).

I would imagine this particular bio sector is especially dependent on government spending, both directly in terms of jobs, and at the second level in terms of contracts. Has this level of spending been affected by the ongoing budget fights? Or the spectre of the unknown with ObamaCare? In general the stock performance has not been great for the pharmas lately.

When the dollars decline, so does the hiring, and just as importantly, the turnover. People put up with jobs they don't like when they're afraid of venturing to the unknown. This is really bad for a guy in your situation (or mine in the dotcom bust after my startup failed) - you may be better than a lot of their guys, but their guys are a known commodity and you're not.

The other suggestions ring true. In this situation, the cold submission of a resume is unlikely to go anywhere. You need to find a way to talk in person, and better yet be referred.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Why wouldn't a company hire a person for a position that they are clearly qualified for?

I've seen:

Too much experience (implying that you'd be bored and not work as hard, go elsewhere when the opportunity arose, butt heads trying to provide leadership, etc.), not broad/deep enough tangential experience for years in industry, the job doesn't exist but they want to have some names for when it does, the job no longer exists but the responsible people don't care enough to update the web site/job board, they need to advertise the job to meet government regulation, you worked too short (job hopping, likely to leave) or long (implies insufficient skill or initiative to tackle bigger roles within the company or elsewhere if that failed) at previous positions, you worked at companies that were too big/mature and might not be a good cultural fit, if the job description got the interest of a purple unicorn they'd opportunistically hire but otherwise won't, the text of your resume rubs people the wrong way, some one at the company doesn't like you personally, the positions are being filled by personal references from employees (I don't think I'd ever take a chance on some one my team didn't know over some one they did), and the job posting is from an office which corporate is going to close so the branch office is doing some level of resume screening/phone screening/in-person interviews but aren't being allowed to go farther in the process.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

According to Belgian_Draft in another thread, you aren't really looking for work. According to him, you should take a job as a janitor.

Of course, that's complete bullshit.

As I stated in another thread, companies take out job ads for a lot of different reasons and only one of them is to actually hire people.

The issue as I see it is a combination of that and the fact the job market is so tight, companies can be ridiculously choosey (and sometimes illegally discriminatory) in the way they conduct their staffing.

Actually finding a job anywhere really sucks right now.

In your haste to make another poster look bad you forgot one thing....he has already taken a lower paying job when he couldn't find work.

Damn it's funny watching you try to look intelligent.

Speedracer, have you had your resume reviewed by a professional? You stated that you are highly skilled, highly qualified, and highly educated. Not to say your resume is an example, but I have read literally hundreds of resumes that were nothing more than the applicant proclaiming how good they are. Resumes that show the person is not only skilled but also knows the limit of their knowledge and are willing to learn always stand out.
Others have posted about how many replies online listings get. I put a position online one time and will NEVER do that again. Close to 300 replies in 48 hours. No way could I reply to each one.
Keep looking and don't forget to make follow up calls after submitting a resume to make sure they received it.It can make a HUGE difference.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[skydiver30960 0]

Lots of good points here already, I won't restate (at least not intentionally). Two points I'll make using examples from my past:

1.) If you want to stay in a specific area, you need to be ready to consider "unorthodox" employment options. In 2004, I had to completely reinvent myself to get a good job in a geographical location I wanted to be in. Bye bye engineering, hello nursing.

2.) If you want to get your dream job, you might need to consider relocating to get it. In March of this year I moved from Virginia to Arizona to get my dream job. I dig your point about DC area being hot for your career, but if you aren't getting any hits, then it might be time to look outside the area. I also know this is a hard option to consider given that you're a homeowner and this is a buyer's market.

I guess the sum of the two points above = flexibility is key.

Elvisio "my new job is DA BOMB, it was worth the work, wait, and hassle" Rodriguez

P.S. You have your MS, ever consider teaching?

[Austintxflight 0]

I'm not sure if it applies to your field, but I've heard of companies posting phantom jobs for different reasons.

Posting for positions that are either already filled, don't exist, or are not yet ready to fill. The reasons are varied, from wanting to appear like they are a growing company, keep their name out there to job applicants, having a steady stream of qualified people on file when positions do come up etc.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

It sucks looking for work right now.

It really does. I'm a "pick yourself up" guy but I do realize it's easy for me to say. Being young, healthy, and blessed to know people who can 'get you in the door' is huge. Lot's of people don't have that.

[wmw999 2,146]

From what I've read, everything NWFlyer says is exactly the way it is.

It's not only what you know, it's who you know.

That's both a good and a bad thing.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[weekender 0]

Quote

I'm not sure if it applies to your field, but I've heard of companies posting phantom jobs for different reasons.

Posting for positions that are either already filled, don't exist, or are not yet ready to fill. The reasons are varied, from wanting to appear like they are a growing company, keep their name out there to job applicants, having a steady stream of qualified people on file when positions do come up etc.

i very much agree with your post. My last firm did this for the 10yrs i worked there.

i work for a growing firm now but personally will not hire anyone who cannot give me a reference i already know. there are too many qualified people for me to hire a stranger. In leaner times sure, but not now.

also, if someone is out of work because they can't find it, no biggie to me. if they choose to travel or take some time, its a red flag. Fair or not, i dont like it and wont consider you. its my money and my decision. if you really did walk accross the east coast, make something up to fool people who think like me.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[DanG 1]

Quote

if they choose to travel or take some time, its a red flag.

Why?

- Dan G

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if they choose to travel or take some time off, its a red flag. Fair or not, i dont like it and wont consider you.

Why do you consider that a negative factor?

[weekender 0]

i work in a dynamic industry. 6 months is a lifetime. also, our people make a very high income and its a very competitive environment. only people who are very dedicated and focused are succesful. if want to take off time and not work, i dont personally dislike you. i just wont hire you. i want someone who is focused soley on producing.

I have no problem with kids doing it right out of school. I just have a problem with adults doing it. If you work only so you can afford to play i dont need you. I need people who find this job their hobby. I already have one person who isnt focused and only wants to travel and skydive. I dont need another me.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[shropshire 0]

Joking aside - that kind of Victorian attitude stinks.... do you even let them have holidays or even weekends off?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[weekender 0]

Quote

Joking aside - that kind of Victorian attitude stinks.... do you even let them have holidays or even weekends off?

6 weeks paid. after several years you get a month sabbatical in addition. we also offer top of the line insurance, gym membership, tuition reembursment and a great expense account. there is more that comes and go depending on profits. Like free lunch and such...

the only down side is we expect you to be productive and get along with others.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[shropshire 0]

Then that doesn't sound bad (actually good). I'll send you my CV ... the commute could be a touch tricky.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,426]

>>if they choose to travel or take some time, its a red flag.

>Why?

Because someone who takes six months off is not as current as someone who is still working. If you're selling cheeseburgers that's not a big deal, but if you are setting up Apache servers it is.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I dont need another me.

If you own your own company then fine it is your company to do as you wish. But if you just happen to be someone higher up the food chain in a given company I would say your attitude towards people working under you is a "Red Flag" in itself.

I have been working in the IT industry for more than 25 years and have seen many changes over the years. One of the things I will never ever forget was what I witnessed at one of these "Dynamic Companies" on September 11th, 2001. I was working at a startup software company and many of the people I worked with were talented, dedicated people. But I will never ever forget on that day when you did not know if the world was coming apart at the seams, these dedicated people insisted to continue on with the work day conducting their product meetings as if nothing had happened. The shit was hitting the fan (or at least we thought the shit was hitting the fan) and all these people could think about was "How much money can we make with this dynamic startup company of ours". That day forever changed me in regards to my attitude towards how some people view work as if it was the only thing that mattered in life.

One day you will get sick, or you will get injured while jumping or you will grow up and realize that while work is important, it is not the most important thing in life. If you want to only hire people within your internal circle of contacts that is your choice. If you want to look down on people who exists outside of this inner circle of contacts that is also your choice. Just remember none of us gets out of here alive and there is more to life than dedicating your every waking minute to your career. Been there done that ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[marks2065 0]

Quote

US companies are sitting on piles of cash. Until something forces them to invest in THIS country, we will continue to have a serious waste of human potential.

FORCED? since when should the US government FORCE them to spend money? How would you like to be FORCED to spend your money? sounds kinda like comunism.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Because someone who takes six months off is not as current as someone who is still working. If you're selling cheeseburgers that's not a big deal, but if you are setting up Apache servers it is.

That's a particularly bad example, Bill. Setting up apache instances is hardly cutting edge, only been around since the Clinton Administration.

And nothing precludes someone who is not working from setting them up. It's actually a very good time to be able to tinker with a lot of technology. At the office you can only tinker with a small number of (non production, no user) servers and a finite number of technologies, the ones in use.

And if you're in a business where uptime is the most important aspect, cutting edge isn't your friend anyway. You let others suffer through the problems. I know the cell phone industry has turned into a bit of a joke, treating its customers as beta testers, but saner industries (or regulated ones) do not take such unnecessary risk.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Joking aside - that kind of Victorian attitude stinks.... do you even let them have holidays or even weekends off?

6 weeks paid. after several years you get a month sabbatical in addition.

You don't see the conflict in your statements here? You are giving them lots of vacation time, and an extended vacation/sabbatical. Yet you think that anyone that takes a long vacation is problematic?

Producers work hard. Hard work eventually requires some downtime. You can like the hustle, but eventually you need some time to relax or your productivity will start to sag,

And there are some trips you may want to take in your life that are difficult to do in the middle of producing. Taking more than 2 weeks off is problematic, so the natural time to do it is between jobs.

[billvon 2,426]

>And nothing precludes someone who is not working from setting them up.

Absolutely. But someone who is working on them is guaranteed to be working on them; someone who is unemployed may be.

Since you didn't like my example I'll use one that's more current:

Someone who has been working on gallium nitride field effect transistors over the past six months (most likely at one of three companies) is going to have a lot to offer a potential employer at one of the other two companies. The field is changing fast, with the first practical SMPS-targeted GaNFET devices released only a year ago.

Now, someone who has been out of work for six months may indeed have been working on them somehow - may have been getting samples, building test jigs, taking thermal data etc. But he also may have been watching TV, traveling, playing computer games etc. Hard to tell.

If you need to hire two people then you take both and take the risk on the guy who has been out of work. But if you can only afford one - you take the one that's less risky.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And nothing precludes someone who is not working from setting them up.

Absolutely. But someone who is working on them is guaranteed to be working on them; someone who is unemployed may be.

I just explained to you how there is no such guarantee at all. The employed person may merely be keeping the wheels turning. Maintenance, not creation. They may be in a company that segments the roles into silos, further narrowing their day to day functions.

Your research example is well and good, but applies to a very small percentage of jobs out there. And even researchers need time out - the sabbatical came from the academic research world.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Joking aside - that kind of Victorian attitude stinks.... do you even let them have holidays or even weekends off?

6 weeks paid. after several years you get a month sabbatical in addition.

You don't see the conflict in your statements here? You are giving them lots of vacation time, and an extended vacation/sabbatical. Yet you think that anyone that takes a long vacation is problematic?

Producers work hard. Hard work eventually requires some downtime. You can like the hustle, but eventually you need some time to relax or your productivity will start to sag,

And there are some trips you may want to take in your life that are difficult to do in the middle of producing. Taking more than 2 weeks off is problematic, so the natural time to do it is between jobs.

I'm a normal person. i contradict myself alot.

current employee's are rewarded for working hard. if i dont know you and you dont work for me i make an opinion based on my life experience. people who take long breaks from work, multiple months, are not as dedicated to their work than others, in my experience. of course, that cannot always be true. i know that. but i must find a way to eliminate canidates. I, like many, use this.

you dont have to like it but itis how the world works. im not rare. talk to any recruiter. if you want a high paying job in a respected profession. dont show a long gap in your resume if you can avoid it.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If you need to hire two people then you take both and take the risk on the guy who has been out of work. But if you can only afford one - you take the one that's less risky.

There is a lot of truth about what you speak but here is a bit of spin of my own. Is that unemployed worker really less risky? Why is the employed worker talking to you? The employed worker is talking to you because they are thinking of jumping ship to another organization. How long before the already employed worker begins thinking of jumping ship for greener pastures after you hire them? Unless you know someone already on the inside of a given company you do not know what work will be like until you actually get in the door. Once in the door you may realize things are not as rosy as they were marketed as and you may need to jump ship again. So hiring the existing employed person is not always the less risky prospect.

The unemployed are in a nasty catch-22 scenario right now. The companies have so many people to look at that many of the companies have adopted a "we will not even bother looking at unemployed people" stance in regards to hiring and this makes things worse on the unemployed who may be unemployed through no fault of their own. It is kind of like the opening scenes in the movie Apocalypse Now where every minute Captain Willard sits in his Saigon hotel room, he gets weaker meanwhile Charlie out in the bush gets stronger. Catch-22 ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over