Lol! And this is what most supposedly intelligent employers really think. There is currently no research to support such stupidity. I made a conscious decision to stay out of the traditional workforce because I saw an opportunity to get my graduate and post graduate degree. During this time I did assitantships, volunteer work and free skill building work in the career I wanted to go into. I also stayed out a bit longer to home-school my daughter which actually made me smarter. However, when a company only relies on computers, recruiters and dumb trends to tell them if someone is "working" or not they miss out on the cream of the crop employees. During this time I have taken computer classes to keep current with technology and I am fabulous for work, management and training others. I think the joke is on the employers that think they are so smart though. Myself and others like me have found power in low level jobs where we move up quickly and share our talents with the underdogs. Don't waste your time trying to prove yourselves. Go out and look for small private companies who really want awesome employees, who want to really take the time to get the best and not just some dud who is good with keywords and faking through the system. The term "unemployed" doesn't even mean to these folk what you think it means. To them anything other than a traditional job is unemployed to them. So if you have been self employed you are unemployed. They have very narrow ways of seeking qualified applicants which is why they usually end up with high turnovers. If you skip the know it all companies and go to the ones most people look down on you will be in a top position before you know it and you will have the very companies who trashed your for being unemployed seeking you out. While you are not working educate yourself and keep your skills current and you will shine.
Additionally, its near impossible to create a 'stable work history' with the more offshoring of jobs corporations do, combined with all the layoffs they do to save a few bucks, while managers don't take paycuts but take extended vacations.Companies should be grateful if the average worker has been able to maintain a working history of 30 out of the last 60 months in the past 5 years. Its not like many workers are getting get picked right back up up right away when there are little to no jobs to apply for that match their work background or skillset.
A 'stable work history' is no different than any other discriminatory tactic, such as credit history checks for jobs that aren't in the financial sector.Corporate greed has got to be taken out of the equation. Its that simple. Quite a bit of that corporate greed still lies within healthcare, pharmacy, and medicine related fields as this article noted quite well.Papa Johns is getting more republi-con-artist by the day. Not to mention their Pizza isn't exactly all that tasty of a treat anyway. They're a company I already do not do business with, and don't see that changing any time soon.Most people who already are employed wouldn't be looking for work in the first place, unless it was work that is paying better than what they are receiving currently as it were. So I really don't get employers logic there. Would I leave a job paying me $25 an hour for another one that pays the same or less? Most people would not. Nevermind the fact Papa Johns jobs probably don't even pay that high of a wage as it were.And what about the fact that most of these companies listed in this article, vote republican and or- support the republican party with special interest money and campaign money?So much for the good-natured conservative family values and values of spirituality of loving neighbors as thyself from the good ol GOP. Those ideals today are out the doors and windows of that party, in the spirit of Greed Over People and Profits Over People. I guess to them such ideals mean, earn as much you can while screwing everyone else out of a chance to pay bills or pay for their own place to live. We can't abort the baby, because we need to starve it as a child, then watch it wither away and die on the city streets- homeless or killed otherwise.
In today's job market where the unemployed are seen as a liability, when the unemployed do manage to find a position they often already have two strikes against them. The position that you have landed is likely not very desirable, i.e. abusive manager. Your prior unemployed status is almost as if you already have your performance final warning on file with HR. After losing my job at the beginning of a down-ward spiral for my employer, I was unemployed for almost 4 months with no prospects. I wasn't even getting phone interviews with HR when I landed an interview an hour away at a company I had never heard of through a recruiting agency. I wasn't overly excited about this company's product, but upon meeting the management team that I was working with I decided that this was a company that would offer some growth potential and maybe I could learn to appreciate the product. It didn't take long before I realized that almost everyone in the company had gone to the same college and this was the only company most had ever worked for. My manager was a lazy myopic micromanager that hadn't developed any new skills in over 20 years. He had simply delegated those responsibilities to others and continued on an outmoded management model that was suited more for a floor supervisor than a corporate manager. Whenever my boss came into my office it was to scream at me. Once I finally figured out what he was screaming about, it was usually not because I did anything wrong, but I arrived at my solution through a different path. He engaged in management through rumour. I didn't even have to do any thing wrong. All he needed was a story, and I was obviously in the wrong. I still remember the two times that he pronounced, "This must have happened at your last job, and that is why you got fired!" I did end up getting fired for not meeting expectations, but those expectations were never explained even when I asked for clarification. I was simply told that after having been working in the industry for as long as I had that I should just know what he wanted. I guess I missed Clairvoyance and Mind-Reading on the job description. The one thing that I have learned is that every department does things differently.
Sometimes businesses aren't stable employers. Workers should reject unstable employers. We must remember that a worker is a business man/woman of One who hires other businesses to work with to produce goods and services. It's a two way street. The term "worker" is a misnomer created by Socialist during the early part of the Industrial revolution. We're all business persons!
I am a Electrician my work history ever since I bought my house is god awful, I can;t even get min wage jobs like target, sears, and other retail store because they know once I do land a job in my field I will be right out the door, I just applied for a job at a local amusing park they will pay me 10 dollars an hour and 40 hours a week, what a joke, as it stand I make more money on unemployment which I currently have. How can I just simple shot myself in the foot?
I'm not often involved in hiring people, but once when I was, we were looking to fill a high-skill technical job and we got a resume that showed 6 months at one job, 3 months at the next, a few weeks at another, etc. This person had gone through over a dozen jobs in just a few years, with the most time at any one job being a year. My immediate thought was: I don't know if this guy gets fired from every job he gets, or if he quickly gets bored and quits. Either way, why in the world would we want to hire him? He's not going to be around long enough to do any useful work. I can readily understand why employers would want "stable employment history". As one of my co-workers said at the time, if you see that someone had 3 years at job A, 2 months at job B, and 5 years at job C, you say, okay, so he took that job and then realized it was a mistake, or he had some personality conflict, or whatever, no big deal. But when every job he's had lasts just a few months, that's not bad luck or one mistake. There's some fundamental problem there. Maybe some employers use "stable" as a code word for "currently employed", but there's very good reason to want "stable".
Sometimes a corporation will have one of its best employees switch sides to either spy on or throw the monkey wrench into the clockwork of its competitor. Sometimes a worker with a perfect work record becomes the fox in the henhouse. A worker with less than a perfect work record is less of a security risk. The only worse thing than a fox in a hen house is a smart fox in a hen house.
Just because a person gets laid off doesn't necessarily mean that she is a loser. Sometimes the people with less seniority are the ones to get laid off first. Also, sometimes a company will just decide that they can do without a certain position during a recession, and it has nothing to do with the employee's job performance or qualifications. More rarely, sometimes a person is laid off or fired due to politics or backstabbing. Also, sometimes an employee worked in a position for which they weren't quite qualified. This employee may work better in another position with less responsibility or may work better in an entirely different career field.
The last thing that an employer wants to do is compliment his best workers because this makes his workers feel as though they should be paid more. Compliments also give his workers the idea that they may do better elsewhere since they are so indispensable. Workers who are job hopping are the ones who think they are indispensable. They each get a rude awaking after they ditch their current complimenting employer for one who puts 'em down no matter how well they work in order to make 'em feel unworthy for an advancement in pay. How do employers expect to keep a job hopper with a good work history who feels that she's indispensable.