|
I have never understood goal statements by the time you are applying for a job isn't your goal Get This Job
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's mostly true. I could see it hurting job chances at some places compared to using the standard resume information, though. Babby's first salary negotiation. Wasn't there a story a while back of an interviewee whose negotiation tactic was "my momma told me never to undervalue myself", and so rejected a salary which was already the maximum possible for that position?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Goal statements are pretty helpful as an employer at least. If someone is looking for an architect role and you don't have them, or they want to grow into management and it's not a management-track position, that's good to know. It's also useful in shaping parts of the interview when exploring their professional motivations and intentions (which skills are they looking to apply and develop, e.g.). I've always preferred a resume with a concise goal statement, and I always recommend that applicants write one specifically for each employer to which they apply. (There's a strong case to be made that you should ask exactly the same questions of every candidate, in which case the tailoring value is much lower.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I've seen people include pronouns in their email signature recently, which I think is fine. I'm not sure you need to tell people that you're cis and present as your birth gender, doesn't that kind of defeat the overall purpose of normalization of including pronouns? Yeah, I've read some compellng arguments recently for cis people offering pronouns to help normalize it, so trans people maybe get fewer weird looks from old assholes who have never heard of such a zany thing before. Makes sense to me, and I'm happy to be an ally in that way. Clarifying the cis/presents as birth-gender stuff seems weird, though. Maybe even kind of lovely...? As a potential employer, that information is none of my business, and shoehorning it in there kind of makes me wonder if the applicant is really trying to say, "Hey I'm progressive and woke af, but also FYI I'm definitely not trans, so you won't have to deal with any drama or extra health care expenses or anything!" Like, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I'm left wondering if this applicant is just an oversharer, pushing the boundaries of professionalism, or if she's some kind of transphobic wolf in trans-friendly sheep's clothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Trustworthy posted:Clarifying the cis/presents as birth-gender stuff seems weird, though. Yeah, on further reflection I agree with this part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Punishing someone for negotiating hard sucks. The power imbalance when interviewing is so massive that candidates need to do everything they can to look out for themselves. He was offered the maximum legally allowed and informed that it was the maximum legally allowed. He refused to take yes for an answer and wanted to go over the interview panel and agency to try and get the Governor's contact information to argue for a salary waiver for an entry-level position that will never be approved. That might work in 1% of cases in the private sector, but nobody is going to get legislation passed or the Governor involved to offer someone 20% higher than the max base rate for an entry-level CSR. Subjunctive posted:(There's a strong case to be made that you should ask exactly the same questions of every candidate, in which case the tailoring value is much lower.) We legally have to ask the exact same questions to every applicant. We can't even exclude a question. So, if it gets asked once, then it has to be asked to every applicant. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
Offering pronouns is a fine and dandy way of normalizing them, but saying you're cis or trans is incredibly not something you should feel obligated to divulge to a employer or something we should normalize, I can only see that being used for discriminatory hiring
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
normal contact posted:Babby's first salary negotiation. This happens SO often. We have literally had people either: - Cite their mom to support behavior/salary requirements/criticisms of the hiring process. or - Have their mom call in after an unsuccessful interview. One guy in his mid-20's had his mom come with him to the interview and asked if she could sit in the room with us during the interview. We also have a ton of less crazy, but still awkward things happen during the interview process or the first week of employment: - People listing "Short-tempered" and "can't deal with fools, laziness, and underachievers." under "accomodations for mental health." - We have had people send back offer letters with amendments like "Can't work on Thursdays and need to leave by 2:45 pm on Fridays because my childcare charges afternoon rates if I don't pick them up by 3:30." They never mentioned or asked about it in the interview. - People trying to take 3-day vacations on their first week. - People applying for short-term disability in their first week of hire due to "anxiety induced by working conditions." - Someone who asked for a state car in response to always being late. ("The bus schedule doesn't work for the office schedule. I have to either be 20 minutes early or 25 minutes late!") - Someone asking whether concealed-carry laws applied in the office. I don't know how most people are employed. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Yup, the lance corporal who handles the filing of paperwork on servicemember dependents is held to a higher standard than the president of the United States of America with regards to security clearance. That is a real thing. Deciding which material is secure and which isn't and who gets access to it is an Executive function, and thus the President is the ultimate authority for that. Who even gets to classify material is defined by Executive Order. Of course the President gets more leeway than the lance corporal, the President is literally in charge of the matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He was offered the maximum legally allowed and informed that it was the maximum legally allowed. He refused to take yes for an answer and wanted to go over the interview panel and agency to try and get the Governor's contact information to argue for a salary waiver for an entry-level position that will never be approved. Sure, so let him talk to the manager if he's selected, as you said. It is *very* common for people to say "this is the most our band permits" and not have that be the case, at least in the private sector. Like, that statement is untrue more often than it's true (though the line manager interviewing might not know that it's untrue). People also often behave differently with an offer in hand then they do at the table where it's more abstract. If I ever went to a hiring committee and said "he was our top candidate until he got aggressive on salary" it would be very poorly received.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Punishing someone for negotiating hard sucks. The power imbalance when interviewing is so massive that candidates need to do everything they can to look out for themselves. Shouldn't you at least wait until they accepted you before starting negotiations on salary? I would imagine every interviewer in the world would get really annoyed at someone trying to negotiate salary during the interview process like the guy already has the job. Also, he completely misunderstood the position, since government salaries are usually pretty strictly set. He came in negotiating like it was a private company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Shouldn't you at least wait until they accepted you before starting negotiations on salary? I would imagine every interviewer in the world would get really annoyed at someone trying to negotiate salary during the interview process like the guy already has the job. Also, he completely misunderstood the position, since government salaries are usually pretty strictly set. He came in negotiating like it was a private company. I've explored salary on the first call as a candidate, because if we're $75K apart then there's no point continuing. I don't take it at face value, but it's a general indicator. If I were interviewing and someone wanted to negotiate salary I wouldn't engage with them, I'd just say "I'm not in a position to negotiate salary" even if I were the one negotiating or approving it later. It's super easy. (Don't have hiring managers involved in salary negotiations at all, IMO.) He clearly misunderstood the public sector compensation dynamics, but I don't think that should torpedo his application.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
normal contact posted:Babby's first salary negotiation. This happens SO often. We have literally had people either: - Cite their mom to support behavior/salary requirements/criticisms of the hiring process. or - Have their mom call in after an unsuccessful interview. One guy in his mid-20's had his mom come with him to the interview and asked if she could sit in the room with us during the interview. We also have a ton of less crazy, but still awkward things happen during the interview process or the first week of employment: - People listing "Short-tempered" and "can't deal with fools, laziness, and underachievers." under "accomodations for mental health." - We have had people send back offer letters with amendments like "Can't work on Thursdays and need to leave by 2:45 pm on Fridays because my childcare charges afternoon rates if I don't pick them up by 3:30." They never mentioned or asked about it in the interview. - People trying to take 3-day vacations on their first week. - People applying for short-term disability in their first week of hire due to "anxiety induced by working conditions." - Someone who asked for a state car in response to always being late. ("The bus schedule doesn't work for the office schedule. I have to either be 20 minutes early or 25 minutes late!") - Someone asking whether concealed-carry laws applied in the office. I don't know how most people are employed. Edit: Whoops. Double posted that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
I was looking at my State's new hire database and a lot of people had listed their conceal carry license under personal licenses... For office jobs. Seemed like a bad idea, particularly in such a blue state (MA). But I guess it didn't stop them from being hired
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
In more low-grade BWM. My boss is currently talking to her secretary about her "investment" in a pair of $1,650 shoes. They have been a great investment because: - They are black. - They go to the cobbler twice a year for $50. - She has had them for almost two years. - They came with a 3-year insurance policy (?!?) for only $7 a month. This has apparently saved her a lot of money in the past two years compared to how she used to buy shoes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
How do you need to take shoes to the cobbler twice a year? Does she think they are the only ones that can polish them or something? I have no idea how much your standard stupidly expensive yet terribly made by child slaves women’s shoes are, so I don’t know how many pairs of Prada makes $1,650. If she already bought expensive shoes maybe that pays for itself after a few years? I don’t know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Deciding which material is secure and which isn't and who gets access to it is an Executive function, and thus the President is the ultimate authority for that. Who even gets to classify material is defined by Executive Order. Of course the President gets more leeway than the lance corporal, the President is literally in charge of the matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
While I get not wanting to undersell yourself in salary negotiations, people that come off really entitled and aggressive about it often up not working out for many other reasons. I see this a lot at my job, where we hire for position A but the applicant wants position G and doesn't understand we hire/promote internally so they'll have to do job A for a while until an opening pops up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:If the president is the authority on what material is safe/unsafe, then the president should be held to a higher moral/ethical standard than Joe Shlub specifically because they wield that authority. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but it sounds completely asinine. I don’t know how the government would work if the president didn’t have security clearance. Would you boot an elected official out of office over it. Do you put someone else in charge of accessing that information and are they elected? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Baxate posted:I don’t know how the government would work if the president didn’t have security clearance. Would you boot an elected official out of office over it. Do you put someone else in charge of accessing that information and are they elected?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:It certainly shows there's a serious problem with electing someone unqualified for the role they're supposed to perform. May I know who do you intend to appoint to this office? And since this is obviously such an important position to decide the highest office, should this position not itself be held to a similar standard? And how will these public servants be appointed to such a position since apparently voting is not the right mechanism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
John Smith posted:If I understand you correctly, you are stating that somebody must determine the eligibility of a citizen to hold the office of President. In this case, based on a subjective assessment (moral standards) rather than a black-and-white objective assessment (i.e. >35 years old). Since the existing system already performs this indirectly through the Presidential election, your preference must therefore be for another office to pre-screen citizens for suitability beforehand. I propose a grand ayatollah who can appoint some dudes who appoint some other dudes who appoint some other other dudes who decide who gets to run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In more low-grade BWM. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1650-New-Chanel-MOON-CAMELLIA-NAVY-Leather-PEARLS-Sneakers-Flats-Shoes-37-5-40-/263232595995 ? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:two-page resume 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
John Smith posted:If I understand you correctly, you are stating that somebody must determine the eligibility of a citizen to hold the office of President. In this case, based on a subjective assessment (moral standards) rather than a black-and-white objective assessment (i.e. >35 years old). Since the existing system already performs this indirectly through the Presidential election, your preference must therefore be for another office to pre-screen citizens for suitability beforehand. God damnit I read this whole thing before I saw who it was
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Two page resumes have no place in polite American society. I’ve heard Europeans do some weirdness there, like Germans including a headshot, but that just seems strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:It certainly shows there's a serious problem with electing someone unqualified for the role they're supposed to perform. Yeah that’s definitely a problem with the voting public, but as long as you want to have legitimate democratic elections you can’t really have like the military Chiefs of Staff undemocratically strip an elected official of his powers which are conferred by the people. The right way to do that would be via impeachment since Congress is democratically elected
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://www.ebay.com/itm/1650-New-Chanel-MOON-CAMELLIA-NAVY-Leather-PEARLS-Sneakers-Flats-Shoes-37-5-40-/263232595995 ? Not those. I don't know if it is better or worse, but they just look like regular black heels to me. The only clue that they cost that much from just looking at them is the brand name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Mocking Bird posted:God damnit I read this whole thing before I saw who it was
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I have never understood goal statements by the time you are applying for a job isn't your goal Get This Job 100% agreed. Goal statements are the first thing I remove from any resume someone asks me to edit. They're utterly useless to the candidate at best, harmful at worst. Unless you were specifically told by the employer to include a goal statement (and run far away if you were, if it's not some weirdo academic-industry collab thing), replace it instead with a short and snappy summary of qualifications. Top of the resume, who are you? You are a Widget Analyst with 8 years of experience in Widget Marketing, specializing in Key Phrase #1 From Job Description, #2 Phrase, #3 Phrase. (Whatever you can actually support / prove, of course. Exaggerate, but don't lie.  )It's a waaaay better use of top two inches than telling me you hope to get a job. OF COURSE YOU DO, YOU APPLIED, RIGHT?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Offering pronouns is a fine and dandy way of normalizing them, but saying you're cis or trans is incredibly not something you should feel obligated to divulge to a employer or something we should normalize, I can only see that being used for discriminatory hiring A good rule of thumb is that one shouldn't volunteer any information about yourself in an interview or resume to a potential employer on topics the employer is legally not allowed to ask about. They might be able to infer your religion, gender or ethnicity based on some of your prior work experience or educational history but no way do you want to explicitly call out any legally protected statuses. "By the way, I'm pregnant and am anticipating taking FMLA, but please do not discriminate against me. Thanks!" edit: on goal statements, I had a HR/resume expert a few months ago tell me that they are wildly out of fashion now. The only place that kind of stuff matters is if you are trying to do something very different with your next career move and are thus providing context as to why your experience and qualifications don't match what a typical applicant would have. Like an engineer wanting to get into a sales role or something. canyoneer fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:Two page resumes have no place in polite American society. I’ve heard Europeans do some weirdness there, like Germans including a headshot, but that just seems strange. How does that joke go? Me: "People with two page resumes are unlucky, and I don't want to hire someone who is unlucky." Other interviewer: "What do you mean they're unlucky?" Me: (throws resume in garbage) "It's pretty unlucky that that resume just got thrown away"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Is there really a stigma with a two page resume, at least for people with say 10+ years of professional experience? I thought we were past that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Barry posted:Is there really a stigma with a two page resume, at least for people with say 10+ years of professional experience? I thought we were past that. Why would they care about your work history beyond the last 3 positions/last 5 years or so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
therobit posted:Why would they care about your work history beyond the last 3 positions/last 5 years or so? Because it's relevant?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Sundae posted:100% agreed. Goal statements are the first thing I remove from any resume someone asks me to edit. They're utterly useless to the candidate at best, harmful at worst. Unless you were specifically told by the employer to include a goal statement (and run far away if you were, if it's not some weirdo academic-industry collab thing), replace it instead with a short and snappy summary of qualifications. Top of the resume, who are you? You are a Widget Analyst with 8 years of experience in Widget Marketing, specializing in Key Phrase #1 From Job Description, #2 Phrase, #3 Phrase. (Whatever you can actually support / prove, of course. Exaggerate, but don't lie. I've always done: Top: name THEN: qualifications/education THEN: previous related work experience (with explanation of previous tasks) Second page: 3 references.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Barry posted:Is there really a stigma with a two page resume, at least for people with say 10+ years of professional experience? I thought we were past that. I work at an IT staffing firm and every single resume I see is MINIMUM 2 pages. Some are 3 and a few are even 4 pages. I'd be really annoyed if someone arbitrarily tried to keep theirs to 1 page unless they were applying for an entry level helpdesk position or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Why would you put your degree if you graduated more than 5 years ago? If someone is claiming 10 years of relevant experience, I want to know what that experience consists of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Barry posted:Because it's relevant? Beyond 5 years/3 jobs I really question how relevant it is, unless you job hop all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would you put your degree if you graduated more than 5 years ago? People don't put their degree on their resume? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:34
|
|
