Does it matter how long an applicant has been out of work?

Celeste Blackburn SPHR

There's an article in today's [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383516043639305.html"][I]Wall Street Journal[/I][/URL] that explores the theory that the longer a worker is out of a job, the harder it is to find one. It sites a 1980s study by two economists that reaches that conclusion. It also follows a few job hunters who say they have been asked questions like "How come you haven't had a job since [you were laid off 9 months ago]?" and the president of a staffing agency who notes while employers say this isn't a factor, if the company sends in multiple applicants, it's never the one who has been out of work the longest who is hired.

When you are sorting through resumes/applications deciding who to interview and when making your final hiring decision, does it matter how long an applicant has been out of work?

Has the recession affected how you view someone out of work for a longer period of time (for instance, would you be more apt to overlook a 9-month break in work now than 5 years ago)?


Here is the link to the article: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383516043639305.html[/url]

Celeste

Paul in Cannon Beach

We hired a fellow who hadnt had a job in five years and it was definitely a concern for me. He ended up doing fine though.

I think the length of time an individual is unemployed can be considered along with all the other information you have but I would be careful to place too much emphasis it.

There are legitimate reasons why a person may intentionally go without a job. Someone might use the time to go back to school. They may have an ill family member they were caring for.

I would say its comparable to the NUMBER of jobs a person has. A high frequency of jobs is a red flag but it deserves investigation and shouldnt be the basis for writing an applicant off.

Still Need Coffee

The recession has definitely changed my opinion on this topic. I have close friends who are highly qualifed, dedicated workers out of work due to layoffs, and I know that it's not their fault, they were simply the ones with the least amount of seniority.

Before the recession, (whether right or wrong) I would heavily weigh gaps in employment, especially if they were currently unemployed. Now, as long as I can verify the layoff and hopefully the layoff criteria, I really don't think of them any differently than a currently employed applicant - its the unfortunate times we live in!

NaeNae55

It depends. My first concern is always that they have not been totally honest about what they have been doing the last few months/years. However, anyone who reads the news these days has to know that there are many applicants who have been out of work for months (or possibly years.) Right now I would ask to make sure, but I would be satisfied with an answer that included the economy.

Paul in Cannon Beach

I think the flip side of this is that an employee with an extended length of service (even in a menial job) impresses me. It shows me they can handle the inevitabel ups and downs of an employment experience without jumping ship the first time they get frustrated at work.

Some of the younger staff I have hired were hired primarily because they worked at McDonalds or Dairy Queen for more than two years.

Its never wise to base a hire on one factor but sometimes you can use something to be the "tipping point" in your decision.