I’m finding the hard way that finding another job is a grind: you invest time reading what they want to hire, you write a CV and an application.

Most of the time you don’t get an answer, meaning you are that irrelevant to them. Most of these times it is YOU the one who has to ask if they decided for or against. On the limited times they write you back, it’s a computed generated BS polite rejection letter.

I asked one of them how many candidates they considered and why they rejected me, but that only made them send me another computer generated letter.

I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.

It sucks having to need them more than they need you. And I should consider me lucky, because I have a job, but jesus christ, I feel for those who have to do this without stable income or a family that offers them a place to stay…

  • partial_accumen
    link
    223 months ago

    I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.

    I can tell you from the employer side there is nothing to gain by answering this question asked by a candidate, and everything to lose which is why you the candidate almost never hear a response.

    There are some legally protected reasons you cannot be turned down for a job. Its all the stuff you’d think of: race, religion, marital status, sex, age, etc. The likelihood you were turned down because of one of these illegal reasons is usually very low in the USA. I’m proud to say for the hiring efforts I’ve been a part of, these have never been considered criteria for disqualifying a candidate. Its always been for things like lack of knowledge/education, criminal history (example multi-DUI for a job that requires driving or conviction of embezzling when put in charge of company finances ), etc.

    However, any documented reason a prospective employer gives back to a candidate becomes a liability. Will that candidate sue the company claiming that they weren’t hired because they think the position required some not married, which would be a crime of the employer?

      • partial_accumen
        link
        9
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Legally they cannot. Also, domestic violence happens to men too.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          53 months ago

          Legally they cannot.

          gender supremacists:

          “Hold my beer and watch me do exactly that. Again and again and again without any censure or pushback, purely because I am being a gender bigot against men, and for no other reason. We have full societal and legal ability to employ open misandry, because opposition of any kind is misogyny by default.”

          domestic violence happens to men too.

          71% of non-reciprocal (only one person being abusive) physically violent (actually striking) domestic violence involves women striking men.

          As in, 71% of those victims are men.

          And under those same conditions (non-reciprocal physically violent DV), two-thirds of victims that were injured seriously enough to require hospitalization were men, yet almost 100% were also arrested as the “perps”, even though they were the only victims.

          Losts of people have problems with these facts. Wild how bad anti-reality ideological indoctrination has gotten.

    • @AA5B
      link
      13 months ago

      And now with AI it’s even worse …… how do I respond that when i asked a technical question, it was suspicious that you looked down, paused several seconds, then appeared to be reading an answer? While being able to use the tools is a prerequisite, that’s not what the interview is for …… but I have to make a judgement call with no proof