What you're doing wrong in an interview... and in your life.

page: 10
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by getreadyalready


There is no employer, not even a menial factory job, or box loader at UPS, that doesn't want intelligent people that require little supervision.


Not true. If a higher up is insecure in their abilities, they will be afraid of those who they see as more capable. I've seen it happen quite a few times, even if its to the companies detriment. Remember, stupid people dont make smart decisions.



This is true, but it is almost always a temporary situation. Everyone has a boss, or some numbers they are responsible for, or some customers they are responsible for keeping. If a stupid person gets into a position of authority and makes a lot of bad decisions, they won't last.


If only that were always true. Alas.


You are right though, occasionally a boss will have a fragile ego and anything you do good will be a threat to them. In those cases, you have two choices. Get them fired, or get them promoted. I've always found it easier to do the best job possible, and give all the credit to my boss, and they love me, and they get out of my way pretty quickly. If that is impossible, then it becomes necessary to do very thorough record keeping, and CYA, and let them hang their self. That approach is very difficult and risky, but sometimes it is the only choice.


Both good points. Unfortunately, sometimes stupid finds themselves insulated from consequence. Tis a flawed world, to be sure.




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I honestly do not see where I gave the impression that all workers were lazy, although I could see where it could be perhaps interpreted that a majority are naive.


It's the overall impression I get, entrepeneurs and business owners have worked hard, made sacrifices, took risks the employees did not have to make. The employees didn't choose to become employers, so they probably don't have what it takes, which employers do since well they start businesses and maintain them.

I would say there are lazy employees and lazy employers. I didn't consider lazy employees as thieves until I read that post a few pages back, which I appreciate because I didn't regard them that way and I'm sure it'll help in my overall performance and attitude.

The lazy employers set up a business, hire people to maintain it then sit back expecting to cash in without having to work much, they just believe everyone should respect them forever (or until the company closes) for setting up the business, providing a workplace and wages and everyone should be OK with that because without him none of it would exist in the first place. Usually such people demand a certain treatment from their employees as if they are their saviour, highest authority and expect a daily dose of flattering comments. If they are the kind who keep on setting up businesses I could be ok with that but not the kind who set up 3 companies and then expect to just sit back and watch how their employees are making money for them, as opposed to those who expect to earn it.

In response to the argument an employer can't just pack up their business and go someplace else like employees can quit and go someplace else. It's not that easy for an employee. They have to get acquinted with new coworkers, the processes going on in the company, in my experience working at offices learning how to work with new software is also very important.

To me it's not that easy deleting 500 people in my brain, software I used to work with and then replacing them with my new coworkers and different software applications. I know I'm different in this respect than most people but it goes for everyone although most do this without really realizing this. You have to work together and can't treat coworkers as complete strangers every working day. Knowing your coworkers is in fact more productive, it's the difference between a succesful team all anticipating each others moves and performance as opposed to coworkers who can't stand eachother, refuse to get to know eachother professionally and generally not working well together.

And in response to the idea of 'attack 1 employer and you attack them all'. That's just not true and is only in one employers head. But most likely not in the heads of other employers, so it's just not real. And even if it were real, I'd say there are good employers and bad employers. Sure they can form unions in their mind but a bad employer can't use the arguments a good employer uses.

As a last comment about the younger employees. Things have changed so much in such a short time it's no wonder the younger generation is so different, that difference is only going to become larger and more apparent. I don't think it will take long until the younger generation understands how badly the previous generation screwed things up for them. Hence they will have less respect overall than what the older generation is used to, who often don't want to view themselves as being part of the problem but rather those who have worked hard for progress, of which the younger generation takes advantage of. Most of the elderly don't understand how the young are born into a world of debt with a very bleak future. Some even expect them to be happy because the overall quality of living is better than what it was when they were their age. Sure I respect my elders and even deceased ancestors but I'm also looking at what life has to offer me as an individual without taking that into the equation. If I would, then it would all cancel itself out as we all owe whoever paved the way before us right back to the first cavemen and women.
edit on 10/7/2012 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Dragonfly79
I have known CEOs that were miserable as well, and janitors that were never without a smile. Happiness comes from within, not from a job.


I can't agree. But if you need to believe that to be happy I won't argue.


The same with other low status jobs
There are no dishonorable jobs; only dishonorable workers.


I didn't say dishonorable. What I meant is people who have high status jobs usually get better treatment. As if they would be worth more as humans than those with lower status jobs. It's the difference between having to talk yourself some basic human worth each day or having people treat you like you are worth a lot. It's no wonder people with lower status jobs drink and use drugs more because they are unable to value themselves to a degree. Some can't deal with the impressions of certain people in society they get so they numb themselves and those impressions. Those with higher status jobs don't need to remind themselves of their value; others do this everyday for them.


The reality is, if we dropped the pay differential between the gardener and the engineer, we would have too few engineers and too many gardeners. The pay differences occur because of supply and demand, the exact same dynamic that is at present causing real wages to drop because of too many workers and not enough jobs.

Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. We can debate that. Does the debate even matter, though? That is the real question. Life itself is not fair.

TheRedneck


Yes the debate matters, change starts with dialogue, analyzing and interpreting problems, coming up with solutions the majority can agree with. It's what humanity has done for ages, influencing the other in order for change to happen. One person can say something, which is picked up by another and yet others and before you know it there's a majority who feels that way without realizing one person unknown to them said it first somewhere in the world. It's why some governments have firewalls and censorship.
edit on 10/7/2012 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonfly79

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Dragonfly79
I have known CEOs that were miserable as well, and janitors that were never without a smile. Happiness comes from within, not from a job.


I can't agree. But if you need to believe that to be happy I won't argue.



How do you not agree? Do you not believe there are happy janitors or sad CEO's?

Or do you just not believe your own feelings and emotions are within your control?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Sucess is pretty simple to to explain. It comes down to three main catagories or traits.

Ability- Can you meet the requirements of your employer/profession? This could be credentials, showing up on time, smiling, anything that involves direct effort in the job. Can you perform your tasks to the standard or above the standard without hurting yourself? If those standards are rarely met by any employees, and you are just not cutting it, see next section.

Your nose- Knowing when to work hard and who to impress is an important skill. If you impress the right person it can continue to help you for many years. Putting that effort into a bad job or as less than upstanding person can be very bad for you. It's why people get fired after 19 years and 364 days of hard work. Being able to recognize your strengths and make them work for you is a big part of sucess.

Luck- This is one that many made men and women will not consider important. The first two traits can help improve your luck, but bad luck can end a career in a matter of seconds. It's not so important to have extra good luck, as it is to not have bad luck. If you do have bad luck you may want to consider the idea of self fullfilling prophecies.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragonfly79

It's the overall impression I get, entrepeneurs and business owners have worked hard, made sacrifices, took risks the employees did not have to make. The employees didn't choose to become employers, so they probably don't have what it takes, which employers do since well they start businesses and maintain them.

That much I will admit to stating. Are you aware what it takes to start a successful company? Typically a small businessman will invest everything they have, their entire livelihood and savings, plus their time and hopes and dreams, into that business. The rewards are awesome, but the risks are astronomical.

When I got sick and my business closed, I lost it all... I went for years after that with no Internet, no TV, barely a roof over my head, scraping by to get food. I have never experienced that from leaving a company under any circumstances. I have seen people lose a lot over the months following such, but not like happened to me. Within a week, I was indigent.

Employers risk many many times more than employees, and that is the way it should be. Their potential rewards are many many times greater as well.

As to employers who don't have what it takes... there are none (outside a few that are at any one time in the process of failing) because it is literally impossible to fail at business and maintain a business for any length of time. That is why we are seeing even large corporations collapse into mere shadows of what they once were. That is part of a process toward complete failure. Compare that to an employee who can manage to work their whole life doing as little as necessary and still retire if they are never called out on it.


The lazy employers set up a business, hire people to maintain it then sit back expecting to cash in without having to work much, they just believe everyone should respect them forever (or until the company closes) for setting up the business, providing a workplace and wages and everyone should be OK with that because without him none of it would exist in the first place.

The key phrase in the above is "until the company closes".

I think I need to make a clarification here... I am speaking of the ability an employer must have to keep a company profitable and running, not their 'ability' to be nice to their employees. The former is an absolute requirement, while the latter is an asset.

No one can set up a company and hire people to run it without participating. That is a urban myth. The few times someone manages to sit back and allow managers to run a company, it is because they have put in long years of developing the company to that point, and are willing to take a fraction of what they once made in exchange for the 'retirement', or it is a company that is doomed to failure because the owner has no concept of what business really entails.


In response to the argument an employer can't just pack up their business and go someplace else like employees can quit and go someplace else. It's not that easy for an employee.

No, it's not that easy for an employee... but it is literally impossible for an employer! There is nowhere else to go, because employers have to make the places to go! That's the definition of an employer.


And in response to the idea of 'attack 1 employer and you attack them all'. That's just not true...

If I say "So-and-so is a bad employer", your argument has merit. The attack was specific. However, if I say "Employers are evil manipulators", that is not specific and is therefore leveled at all employers.

~continued~



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragonfly79

~continued~


Most of the elderly don't understand how the young are born into a world of debt with a very bleak future. Some even expect them to be happy because the overall quality of living is better than what it was when they were their age.

I am beginning to suspect you might want to broaden your horizons a bit. Things like Internet, TV, home entertainment, electric lights, running water, dependable cars, public transportation, and one-stop department stores are all fairly recent developments. In my lifetime I can remember knowing people who did not have electricity yet, or who still drew water manually from a well. I remember when the first TV arrived in my neighborhood. It was ours. I remember the first VCR in our area; it was mine.

My impression of the younger generation, as a whole with a few notable exceptions, is a bunch of people who can not even imagine life without the luxuries that were not even available a decade ago... much less able to survive without them. I'm sorry, but the advances in quality of life are literally massive. I will agree the debt is a major problem, something I have spoken out against many times, but remember that this debt is even more recent than the advances. It could also have been stopped before it began save for one thing: the entitlement attitude of the general population, the very thing I have been preaching against in this thread, and the very thing I have been debating with you.


What I meant is people who have high status jobs usually get better treatment. As if they would be worth more as humans than those with lower status jobs.

Just because someone's abilities are worth more in a situation than the abilities of another, it does not follow that their overall worth as a human being is worth more or less. Personal worth and business worth are not the same thing. Personal worth is based (IMO) on a person's character... are they a good spouse, a good child, a good parent, a good community member? Do they try to help others? Business worth is based on knowledge, skill sets, and the ability to utilize them.

If you try to equate personal worth with business worth, it is no wonder you are having trouble with the concepts I am trying to explain.


Yes the debate matters, change starts with dialogue, analyzing and interpreting problems, coming up with solutions the majority can agree with.

That happens where the desired results are within the realm of possibility. Not everything that can be dreamed is possible. Human greed is a constant that cannot be denied; people tend to look out for themselves first. Even your arguments in this thread place yourself and those in your position at greater priority than those who do not share as much in common with you.

That's not an insult, nor even a bad thing IMO. It simply is. While there is plenty of room for charity and chivalry and kindness to strangers, all things I personally value greatly, the core still harbors greed.

We can agree all decade long among 5 billion people that gravity should be weaker, with no one refuting the idea... and at the end of that decade gravity will be unchanged. It is what it is. So is human greed and resulting economic realities. No matter how much we debate whether or not they should exist, they will exist.

That debate, then, is an exercise in futility and completely moot.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That much I will admit to stating. Are you aware what it takes to start a successful company? Typically a small businessman will invest everything they have, their entire livelihood and savings, plus their time and hopes and dreams, into that business. The rewards are awesome, but the risks are astronomical.


Yes I am aware what it takes. To me what you are saying just comes across like you would want to paint a picture so you can make your employees believe you have earned that bigger share, how much more valuable an entrepeneur is compared to the employee. Which ofcourse is completely up to the owner, by law even.

It appears to me like an adult telling a child how difficult university is and how one must be superhuman, kind of discouraging. The child grows up imagining university is difficult and it becomes more difficult. I would like people to become more empowered, even if that would mean I would get a lesser share in society. Afterall if we were all our own leaders and independent, the whole economy would look very different.

But I know I'm being unrealistic and humanity has a long way to go education wise. Perhaps my posts could best be considered what kind of attitude not to bring to an interview. People think you have problems with authority, that's the no.1 reason not to get the job and probably a kick afterwards because everyone follows the system of boss-subordinate.


When I got sick and my business closed, I lost it all... I went for years after that with no Internet, no TV, barely a roof over my head, scraping by to get food. I have never experienced that from leaving a company under any circumstances.


Believe me I've always worked for a company, it can happen. Even quit at one time losing every right to welfare which is pretty good in my country. I've had my share of misfortune and problems, only living on water and bread for weeks, unable to pay my bills even if it was only temporary.

There are insurance policies for employers in case they get sick and are without income at least in my country that I know of, besides no offense intended and I'm sorry to hear you suffered but any independent should anticipate for events like illness.

Employers risk many many times more than employees, and that is the way it should be. Their potential rewards are many many times greater as well.

As to employers who don't have what it takes... there are none (outside a few that are at any one time in the process of failing) because it is literally impossible to fail at business and maintain a business for any length of time. That is why we are seeing even large corporations collapse into mere shadows of what they once were. That is part of a process toward complete failure. Compare that to an employee who can manage to work their whole life doing as little as necessary and still retire if they are never called out on it.


The lazy employers set up a business, hire people to maintain it then sit back expecting to cash in without having to work much, they just believe everyone should respect them forever (or until the company closes) for setting up the business, providing a workplace and wages and everyone should be OK with that because without him none of it would exist in the first place.

The key phrase in the above is "until the company closes".

I think I need to make a clarification here... I am speaking of the ability an employer must have to keep a company profitable and running, not their 'ability' to be nice to their employees. The former is an absolute requirement, while the latter is an asset.

No one can set up a company and hire people to run it without participating. That is a urban myth. The few times someone manages to sit back and allow managers to run a company, it is because they have put in long years of developing the company to that point, and are willing to take a fraction of what they once made in exchange for the 'retirement', or it is a company that is doomed to failure because the owner has no concept of what business really entails.


No, it's not that easy for an employee... but it is literally impossible for an employer! There is nowhere else to go, because employers have to make the places to go! That's the definition of an employer.


So an employee has it less easy as there might be other companies to go but an employee can't make the places to go to while an employer has both options. Which I don't mean to say is unfair or not right. Besides, if an employee gets fired he'll have a hard time getting a new job and explain why he got fired. A former employer choosing to become an employee might give more valid/believable reasons like how he misses working at a company or how having a company of his own wasn't what he expected and he prefers being an employee.
edit on 10/7/2012 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
How do you not agree? Do you not believe there are happy janitors or sad CEO's?

Or do you just not believe your own feelings and emotions are within your control?


Maybe happiness deserves it's own thread. I'm sure there are many happy janitors or sad CEO's everywhere and I know I'm in control of my own feelings and emotions. But I'm also a social animal. If someone tells a joke I say he makes me laugh, sure it's because of my interpretation and that is because of my upbringing. Someone from an entirely different culture might not get the joke or just not find it as funny as I would.

In a negative sense, I could pretend I don't care if that coworker tries to make me feel miserable each day by making certain comments. But it would make me a sad panda knowing I'll have to put up with it each day for many years to come and I'd rather have someone with a positive attitude in general or towards me around me. Again I could pretend I don't care and just flip that switch so it doesn't affect my work but I'd have to give up some of what I believe is basic humanity and since I don't want to become a zombie I'm not prepared to do that even if it means less control. Besides I need my feelings so I can quickly decide if something is good or bad for me and if it is bad I might still get out of harms way.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Dragonfly79
~continued~I am beginning to suspect you might want to broaden your horizons a bit.


Maybe you might want to follow your own advice. But then you would not be able to play the guild trip on the young who were not in that time when there was less luxury. They were not there, it's just not how their life is. They didn't choose to get born into this world how it is.


My impression of the younger generation, as a whole with a few notable exceptions, is a bunch of people who can not even imagine life without the luxuries that were not even available a decade ago... much less able to survive without them.


The youth will need all those luxuries to keep the system working, especially with the previous generation creating such a failing economy they are born into and are unable to change. You romanticize the old ways as if it builds character and the youth don't have that but that luxury comes at a price the next generations will have to pay up which I believe builds character just as well. The younger generation doesn't have to go without luxury. It doesn't build character, it just costs more time. Something else the elders didn't have to deal with is the massive amounts of information. I'm in my 30's and I'm still working my way through all the bad thoughtmodels I inherited, something the previous generation could have fixed and taught the young but didn't in pursuit of their own happiness and needs.


I'm sorry, but the advances in quality of life are literally massive. I will agree the debt is a major problem, something I have spoken out against many times, but remember that this debt is even more recent than the advances. It could also have been stopped before it began save for one thing: the entitlement attitude of the general population, the very thing I have been preaching against in this thread, and the very thing I have been debating with you.


I still believe I have a point when I say the youth can't do anything about the suffering of the people before them and it should not be used against them just as the youth shouldn't hold the current failed economy against the elders. Who I'm sure just didn't know and thought it would last forever, things would only get better etc. But things have to change and if no one speaks up no change will come at all ever.


Business worth is based on knowledge, skill sets, and the ability to utilize them.
If you try to equate personal worth with business worth, it is no wonder you are having trouble with the concepts I am trying to explain.


I'm not having that much trouble understanding the elder, thanks. I just don't always agree, I believe it's what is needed for progress to happen. Besides, the economy is a mess, choosing the old ways will only make the mess more messier.

There are some social studies which suggests people want to hang out with people who are like them, on a personal level this also goes for the workplace. If that is not the case you'll likely not get the job or stay very long. But that's probably my experience, I'm aware I have different ideas about things because of which I suspect some people don't like working with me very much or try to make fun of me, make me look bad etc. How much I would like people get commended or criticized on their professional work, often it appears to me people choose not to be so critical when they like the coworker on a personal level.


That happens where the desired results are within the realm of possibility. Not everything that can be dreamed is possible. Human greed is a constant that cannot be denied; people tend to look out for themselves first. Even your arguments in this thread place yourself and those in your position at greater priority than those who do not share as much in common with you.

That's not an insult, nor even a bad thing IMO. It simply is. While there is plenty of room for charity and chivalry and kindness to strangers, all things I personally value greatly, the core still harbors greed.

We can agree all decade long among 5 billion people that gravity should be weaker, with no one refuting the idea... and at the end of that decade gravity will be unchanged. It is what it is. So is human greed and resulting economic realities. No matter how much we debate whether or not they should exist, they will exist.

That debate, then, is an exercise in futility and completely moot.

TheRedneck


Using the laws of physics to prove one's point in business or social matters, if only people could be convinced so easily. Maybe I should talk to my boss and ask him for a raise because well the earth revolves around the sun and currently my wage is like the sun revolves around the earth and my boss has to correct this in my universe by giving me a raise!

But I agree a person has to have something for themselves first and when that criteria is met they might have something to share with others.
edit on 10/7/2012 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragonfly79

Yes I am aware what it takes.

Really?


To me what you are saying just comes across like you would want to paint a picture so you can make your employees believe you have earned that bigger share...

No, you obviously do not:

Believe me I've always worked for a company...

I do not dispute the fact that some employees have it rough at times. I've been in both places and have had some rough times as an employee myself. But to equate the problems one has who has the ability to just up and leave without a penalty on what has already been earned and one who is obliged to only 8 hours a day, to one who is risking everything they have earned previously and is tied to the company 26/7/365 is... well... either insincere or self-deluding.


There are insurance policies for employers in case they get sick and are without income at least in my country that I know of, besides no offense intended and I'm sorry to hear you suffered but any independent should anticipate for events like illness.

There are here, I'm sure, if one is prepared to pay the premiums. But not everyone can pay those premiums. It would be impossible if the owner were somehow prohibited from making substantially more than the employees as you propose.

And why, may I ask, do you believe that "independents" should prepare for every eventuality, no matter how remote, and yet employees should be able to have those same "independents" plan for their every need as well? Do the employees have no obligation to their own well-being? I'm sorry, but this is how you are coming across to me - as ideological and unrealistic.


So an employee has it less easy as there might be other companies to go but an employee can't make the places to go to while an employer has both options.

You might as well say that a homeowner can simply move anywhere they want so it's no big deal if they lose their home, yet tenants are devastated if something happens to the home that doesn't even belong to them.

Businesses, like homes but even more so, require a tremendous investment in time and cash. I honesty wonder, do you seriously believe that people are able to just wake up one morning, decide "I think I'll start a business today", and by lunchtime be rolling in wealth? It simply doesn't work like that.

reply to post by Dragonfly79

But then you would not be able to play the guild trip on the young who were not in that time when there was less luxury. They were not there, it's just not how their life is. They didn't choose to get born into this world how it is.

I never said anything was 'their fault', only that they do not have a harder life and have a poorer work ethic on average than the previous generations.


The youth will need all those luxuries to keep the system working, especially with the previous generation creating such a failing economy they are born into and are unable to change.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. The poor dears, having to live with the burden of new cars and XBox360s, high-speed internet accessible from a cell phone, and a remote-controlled color TV in every room. How on earth can they stand it?

OK, I admit it; that was sarcasm. I honestly did try to shed a tear, but I couldn't stop laughing long enough.


I still believe I have a point when I say the youth can't do anything about the suffering of the people before them...

I never said they did. All I said was that the younger generation do not have the work ethic of the previous generations.


There are some social studies which suggests...

May I ask how you got this from my explanation of the difference between personal worth and business worth?


Using the laws of physics to prove one's point in business or social matters, if only people could be convinced so easily.

Well, if you sincerely believe that economic laws are subject to the whims of dreamers, as you apparently believe youth is greater than experience, businesses are cheap and easy to create, and those who work 9-5 and invest nothing but their labor (which they are paid for) are more valuable to a business than those who invest everything and work many times the hours... I'll just have to thank you for the conversation. You're too far removed from reality for me to even converse with intelligently.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'll just have to thank you for the conversation.

TheRedneck


Thank you too for the insights in your thinking and your display of debating.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Thanks for the info, dude. Interesting and no doubt valuable information.

I recently returned to Sweden after a four month stay in the US, so now I have to go back to looking for work to gather the dough so I can return again. Today's my first full day at "home", and I've already applied for half a dozen jobs. But I'm an impatient guy so I just apply for more and more while waiting to hear from somebody. Anyway, me personally, I could stand hearing if you have any tips on the application letter part from the employer's perspective? What can I do to ensure you throw me an interview, on my application letter?

Thanks in advance!



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
Problem is not always the potential employees, it's the potential employer.

I've been denied more jobs based on the cold fact that I am more than able to perform the said job, that I am intelligent, And able to handle problems without having to ask a million questions about what to do next.

Employers don't want competent people, they want people they can use and not have them stand up for their rights. They want someone who is so afraid of speaking up so they don't loose their job that they are forced to work hours overtime without OT pay and other such likeminded corner cutting.

It happens, I've seen it and been denied employment just to see someone less qualified taking that spot. ( I'm an Honorably discharged AF vet ) But they'd rather have someone who needs to monitored and assisted.

This is the new face of employment in America, they just want to get as much work done for the least amount of price paid out.

if I sound a bit shatty, it's due to the fact I am, specially with this topic, so many think people don't want to work and thats why unemployment is high. It's further from the truth, it's the employers, not hiring perfectly fine people to do a job they are more than qualified to do, they aren't ghettofied, they aren't glamourtized, just dressed to impress and mindset to get a job.

But sadly people are sending out hundreds of resumes, applications, emails, and call backs but aren't getting anywhere, But the key thing here is, you can be under qualified and get the position faster than if you were overqualified.

I work from home now, after 2 and a half years sending out resumes and pestering places with call backs, I got tired of waiting and found a niche to rest in until true working class is needed again in this cess pool that onces was America.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)



This is a very important piece of advice: No matter how simple you believe a job, or a part of a job to be, the degree to which you should appear to feel challenged corresponds directly with the amount of time the employer is spending to train you. If an employer would like to spend four hours training you on how to use their email system, then you better appear to find this email training to be some of the most riveting information ever imparted upon you, despite having sent thousands of emails from multiple platforms and applications. People who find their job difficult to perform resent those who find that job to be easy. And although this phenomenon is rampant in professional circles, it is rooted in a very human tendency. We all want to believe we have successfully surmounted something that would be considered a challenge by most people.

Interviewees also forget that aside from conveying a positive impression, their other job is to INTERVIEW THE INTERVIEWER. This is going to be your employer, folks, and that 40 hours a week could make or break your sense of peace. Choose wisely.





new topics
 
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join