It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'

page: 7
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbayacht
reply to post by krystalice
 


Wow your not very bright, wealth is the primary goal jobs are secondary. You might as well say building parking lots is the goal since it goes hand in hand with hiring more people.


WEALTH IS THE GOAL!, THE REST IS A CONSEQUENCE!

This why all you ever see on here is a bunch of whiners about the big bad companies, you don't understand they are doing what they are suppose to do, MAKE MONEY!


WEALTH CREATES JOBS!


If you read my post you will realize and understand what I meant by a parallel transition in job creation. Besides, after reading your last post, there is no shadow of a doubt as to why you have not deserved a career advancement.

In addition, your negativity is poised with disarray of job dissatisfaction, lack of employer management skills. All this packaged is your composition of a slim chance of ever propelling into the top tier management. It is people like you that wine, and ponder on their hypocrisy for satisfaction.

In conclusion, the only chance for a mere change in your perception of reality, is that people like your self need to taste the life of redundancy that many thousand of people have faced over the past financial crisis.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by krystalice]




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by krystalice
 


I am currently executive VP and an officer in my company making well into six figures and definitely considered "top tier management" sorry to burst your bubble



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
All I have to say is they can and I can if I chose to start a business discriminate as much as I please as long as I don't blatantly state it. Like these dummies did, I am sure there will come a protest and probably some angry letters to politicians and then they will be sanctioned. It's alright to do it, just stupid to say you are. And if you do, they cannot prove it unless you put it in writing. So they will be sanctioned on their stupidity.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbayacht
reply to post by krystalice
 


I am currently executive VP and an officer in my company making well into six figures and definitely considered "top tier management" sorry to burst your bubble


Executive officer, I have seen them come and leave whilst their arrogance and money is gambled in casinos every weekend. But you see I still stand by my point. Your six figure will have no chance of competition against companies such as, Microsoft and Google who values employer job satisfaction. And need I mention, the amount of money that they throw into charities.

How did you reach your six figure salary, let me guess, penny salaries and slave labor and complete employer dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, your days are numbered in this volatile financial market. You too, one day may be faced with debt after losing your six figure salary when your company hits the roof. Be not surprised, negativity and arrogance such as yours is a recipe for unemployment.

At the moment, you are just a pawn and a minority like every one else.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by krystalice]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by krystalice
 


In a company with over 2000 employees I consider third in rank "top tier" . You are so gulible to believe that any effort made by a company toward charities etc is anything more than PR work which is carefully calculated to elicite public goodwill to sell more product to MAKE MORE MONEY anything else would be a act of negligence and lapse of fiduciary responsibility.

Sorry the goal is wealth creation and always will be.

By the way don't worry about my arrogance, I have saved enough in my lifetime to never have to work again, I mostly do it now to assure my childrens future and for the enjoyment and job satisfaction.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
What do you really know about charities, it is easy to be shoot your accusation about against the good will of individuals and companies that willfully and righteously do it out of their hearts content.

How often have you sponsored, or as an EXECUTIVE OFFICER, proposed a scheme to consolidate employer funds to Unicef. Have you ever?

[edit on 6/5/2010 by krystalice]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbayacht
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


I have no hate for you,

Never said you did, I was referencing my post. Not me, personally



...that you have to lie because of the inadequecies of your record.

Erm... I never said anything about lying. Presenting your information in a way that is favorable to you has nothing to do with deceit. As a DJ, I made $250/night. Not that much only two nights a week, but enough to get by on until I could land a decent job. Every job you take, temporary or otherwise, gives you a higher market value. The point is to sell yourself. You don't see pharmacies selling their medications by advertising their side-effects, do you?


But let me spell it out for the others, NO intelligent person believes any of that BS! "Audio Coordinator" stuff the only one your fooling is yourself. If you did get hired for the record they where willing to look past your lie because the job was bad enough and they needed someone bad enough that all the other candidates where worse.

Wrong again. Such broad, sweeping assumptions do you no justice. Again, it isn't lying or even deceit. While there are savvy people who will catch on that you were unemployed and just making the bills, if you present yourself well, show that you have knowledge and skill, and how you can make it valuable to the hiring company, you will get the job you're seeking. Again, it's selling yourself. Your marketable skills come from many places. A lot of Suits have to go to school to figure out how to talk to people or be leaders in their industry. These days, passion for a thing isn't looked on favorable and those with a passion for a specific job will normally be looked over for a more 'qualified' candidate. Qualified meaning they can be completely inept in the duties they are required to perform, but they are the owners of a little slip of paper that took many years and lots of money to say they know something they might not.


By the way none of your estimates are correct. I am not in HR but do interface with them often, I have never not worked in succesively higher paying and higher responsibility position since leaving grad school 25 years ago. I know several people that have worked for GE and all I can say is sorry, I know how bad a company it is to work for.

On the contrary, the subsidiary I work for treats their people well and I'm quite proud to be part of their organization. Looking up from under the GE umbrella, I can see almost nothing to back such a negative claim. As for your job, congratulations. I hope to one day own the company you work for. Some of us don't have to go to college or grad school to be successful, though I'll admit it certainly assists in landing critical employment.

I don't look upon the executive types with much love. As a rule, in the industries I work in, they are conniving, money-grubbing, power hungry buffoons whose goals are not in the benefit of the people of the company or even the consumer, but in the benefit of their own pocketbook and the bottom line for the company. There are exceptions and I know I've made a sweeping statement here, but I RARELY see evidence to the contrary. These Suits are the ones who make the decisions and will make their choices based on the bottom line. Sacrificing quality, safety, employment benefits, etc in the name of the Almighty Dollar might make a few people rich, but it stagnates growth. People who use terms like 'Verbiage, Interfacing, and Upward Mobility" are for idiots who want to appear more than what they are. Which is why it's totally acceptable to use them on your resume, because it's the same asinine drivel that they are used to and practice on a daily basis when a few simple words would explain it all much more clearly.

Last, if a person resorts to using such a tactic on their resume or at any point in the hiring process, odds are they never want to get into the Executive arm of the company, but have higher aspirations, such as owning their own business. I commend you for finding a job that pays well and by your description can tell that you at least are satisfied with where you are. I've sunk a personal venture already due to inadequate ability to manage it, and so I've learned from my NUMEROUS mistakes and watch those who are successful, learning all the while. In studying the upper echelon in my company and our affiliates, I am learning how to manage, catching some of their faults, and hoping to improve on their methods without sacrificing my employees or the quality of service I wish to give my prospective consumer. Information to be used when I have the opportunity to try again. I'll admit to having zero ability in the arena of top level management, but I'm attempting to change that.

So summing up, you have your opinion and plenty of reasons to back it, and I have mine. We're not going to agree on the issue, but at least we've made our opinions known. A hiring gap is a fault to you, but an opportunity to me, and easily exploited to the favor of both the person hiring and their potential candidate. IF, as stated in a previous post, you can pull it off.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


I am currently employed and have been looking for a new job in order to relocate after my wedding. It has been over a year of looking in multiple states with almost no responses. I have sent out about 2-4 Apps/resumes a week for 13 months and have heard back from 3 employers! One was filled with someone else and the other two paid less than my current job and I couldnt take them.

I have to imagine that its a numbers game right now.

Every job I apply for has hundreds, if not thousands of people applying for the same position. An HR person is in hell right now. I am certain that they are cutting that pile of applicants in half without even looking at them. There is just no way to go through hundreds or thousands of resumes for each position.

Most people are weeded out from the group on purely arbitrary reasons, merely to shrink the giant pile of applicants.

Its really tough going looking for a job right now.

Our govt NEEDS to bring the manufacturing back to the US. We cannot outsource all of our jobs and expect to have a thriving economy forever. In the past, when the economy has been bad, it was those domestic manufacturing jobs that carried us through the tough spots. Those jobs just dont exist in the large volume like they used to.

Penalize corporations who move jobs overseas.

The American work force has been reduced to service industry jobs that do not pay very well.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
An awful lot of people on this thread are getting angry with the wrong people.

I'll bet you my dollar to your dime that the firm looking to hire in the OP's snippet hasn't got a clue about this - it is the recruitment agencies they're using. What firms do you know of that pay for advertising a job vacancy and keeps their name anonymous? Zero.

The recruiters do this for two reasons; firstly to gather as many resumes as possible (that they can then forward to other firms who'll pay them their fee of c.25% if they hire the individual) and secondly as they don't want potential candidates applying directly to firms and cutting them out of their fee.

I agree that discriminating against the unemployed is a sh1tty way to do business but aim your revolt at the right people, people.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxlynx
 


At least you are honest. I like that....wow 900 bucks a month? Where from and where do you reside.?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by krystalice
 


That's okay, I just think I'll start my own business in IT and I will:
one.) Hire only mothers/fathers whom have taken off work to raise children, can't leave out single fathers, you know.
Only the unemployed as those will be the ones who are most loyal and hard working to keep their job because those people choosing to search for work elsewhere while employed are untrustworthy in my opinion, they will do the same to the next company that hires them.
and.




Your first statement you claim you don't want to discriminate, then your very next line you discriminate.

While it is noble that you want to give those who take time off for families priority, you discriminate against those looking for other jobs. It may have nothig to do with loyalty.
In my work, everyone is looking for another position, because our manager is a NIGHTMARE. So much so the stress even is having adverse effects on people's health. She discriminates, and is on a major power trip. It is a very unhealthy situation.Secondly, there could be other very good reasons. Some people may be perfectly loyal but their commute is too much. My area is a perfect example of this:ten years ago this used to be way out in the boondocks. They have developed this area so densely, that the roads can't handle the traffic. I live off a little route, that is now so congested it has added 30 minutes to the commute. It now takes an hour to go 15 miles. Poor planning, yes. Maybe their living situation has changed
and they need to move. Maybe they have an elderly relative they may need to move closer too. So is someone having to move to take care of an ederly relative a bad person?


Oh and I'll have no sympathy for ex-corporate a wipes, look to another corporation, my small business will not hire you because
1.) you'll be high maintenance.
2.) you'll want too much money
and
3.) You'll be considered untrustworthy!!!!!!


Again with the blanket discrimination. My grandfather used to own a large company selling large machinery. He is unrivaled as a salesman. When he retired and sold the company, he took a job giving out samples at a grocery store. He was wonderful at it, and absolutely loved it. I think it ended up being one of his favorite jobs. And he is a man of great integrity.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 


Yes, we do have EOE (Equal Opportunity Employment), but that's to protect women, non-Christians, gays, and ethnic minorities. You would think that since everyone who is not eventually gainfully employed will be paid for by the state either through welfare or imprisonment (for doing something outside the law to feed themselves and their families), it'd be at the least illegal to openly STATE that you won't hire anyone out of work. (After all, that's all EOE means at most smaller companies... I can't TELL you I don't hire gays or Muslims or Hispanics).

It's a rather thorny problem though, employers esp. at smaller co's are going to hire whomever the # they like, the laws just mean they have to be careful about the language used while doing so.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



Well, to be fair/play devil's advocate - hiring managers and recruiters are also just doing whatever they think is necessary to stay off the dole themselves. This isn't a time or situation where they are going to want to take unnecessary chances. Recruiting managers and esp. recruiters for staffing agencies and the like are playing a numbers game. They haven't the time nor the inclination to care whether you are the exception to the stats.

Ugly situation, though.




top topics



 
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join