How is it easier to get a job when you already have one?

J_i_m

I think the root of the problem for many people is simply, that the job market is a really competitive environment.

There are two main elements the employer is looking for, that the candidate meets minimum criteria and then for the person who would into their team best out of the list of candidates who meet that criteria.

There could be any number of small prejudices that influence their final decisions, but ultimately unless their decision is directly made on a protected characteristic then you can't really argue that it's discrimination.

Equal opportunity is a very complicated subject at the best of times.

I sometimes suspect that I've been overlooked for jobs not so much for my skills, experience, attributes etc.. but because the other candidate comes across as a better lunch date for a gossip (i.e. with the girls), or because someone else looked more at home in a suit. Silly little things which shouldn't make a difference but do.

But ultimately, we have to accept that many jobs receive hundreds of applications, so to even get short listed at all is often a good achievement. And then you're up against people of similar skills and experience, simply by the odds of chance it's inevitable that someone else is going to look that much better.

Denning.

If there is doubt, then it is a negative.

DigForVictory

I think it *is* easier to get a job from working - access to copier/printer, free internet, work-based learning & at interview examples the next employer can understand immediately rather than have to decipher.

That the candidate has or has not been working may not matter so long as employer #2 "gets" why & accepts it.

However, there is also the indolence by employer #2 - employer #1 has taken the interview risk/cost, paid the initial training etc - all employer 2 has to do is offer a little more money or some minor bolt-on that employer #1 hasn't had time to think of, or reckons new employee hasn't earned yet.

And never underestimate the silly little things that tip the balance for employer & employee.

BillJones

Two4Tuesday wrote: »

It is because, whilst some (most) employers may want to pay as little as they can get away with, they also want the best they can get for their money.

Most employers may feel that a person who is in work has already been 'vetted' by previous employers, and is a safer bet than someone who is out of work.

This is of course the real, and valid reason.

Someone who is currently working is obviously employable, as someone is employing them. There's a strong positive correlation between being employed and being the sort of person an employer would want.

In my business it's normal to buy staff out of existing contracts, often paying them a lot of money in lost benefits, instead of paying far less for someone unemployed.

After 2008 it took me a while to find the job I wanted, but the moment I received an offer and called the other firms to withdraw, they all made offers too, competing to try to get me to join their firms. The week before, when I would have been far cheaper, no-one was very interested.

Nicki

It might depend on the kind of work you are looking for but I would say it is easier to get a job if you are already in a job because

You haven't lost your self confidence by being long term unemployed
You are mixing with people in the right industry so you learn of new opportunities sometimes even before they are advertised
Your reputation in the industry is current
You probably have the right wardrobe for the role so aren't worrying about finding money for an interview outfit
You hopefully have funds to pay for travel to and from the interview.
Most employers will expect you to have a notice period and certainly for professional jobs they won't be looking for an immediate start.

Against that you need to balance possible problems in negotiating time off for interviews and finding enough time for a job search but assuming you have found the job to apply for and got to the point go getting an interview my personal opinion is that already being in work does give you an advantage over other candidates.

makeyourdaddyproud

BillJones wrote: »

This is of course the real, and valid reason.

Someone who is currently working is obviously employable, as someone is employing them. There's a strong positive correlation between being employed and being the sort of person an employer would want.

In my business it's normal to buy staff out of existing contracts, often paying them a lot of money in lost benefits, instead of paying far less for someone unemployed.

After 2008 it took me a while to find the job I wanted, but the moment I received an offer and called the other firms to withdraw, they all made offers too, competing to try to get me to join their firms. The week before, when I would have been far cheaper, no-one was very interested.

But at the moment of the very first offer, that employer had no provenance against which to judge your value. Unless of course that first opportunity missed something?

Hopefully most long term employed could be in that unique middle ground where their unavoidable hiatus is overlooked.

I agree with the salient points of your post, even though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I have chosen an extended sabbatical. Whether an employer sees my leave of absence in the same view remains to be seen. Ho hum...

iammumtoone

I think people are more employable when they are in work as they are more likely to be interested in the job they are applying for and stay long term.

Employed people normally apply for jobs they actually want, they have that luxury.

The unemployed apply for everything (not helped by the fact they have to do this to qualify for benefits) it is likely that the job they are applying for if they got it, they would soon be looking for other work which they actually want to do.

Having said that I was long term unemployed and recently found a job. I was very lucky the company needed someone quick, the interview was on the Friday, I started on the Monday! No employed person would have been able to do that

gigi7

I think it's a bit of a catch 22 situation, as now there is so much competition for even the NMW jobs so you have to be seen as employable but also available to interview/start ASAP.

I have been in a temp position for the past couple of months, and have applied for numerous permanent positions, with only one, I think, interviewing outside 9-5. I was even turned down for one position as the wanted immediate start,and I had to give a weeks notice! My managers at the temp position were quite flexible if I wanted to leave early or start late, but I only did so twice as I thought it was unfair on them, as they weren't paying me to go for interviews.

Whilst the general 'consensus' is that you're more employable if you're already working, I got the impression from most responses that they want an applicant who has relevant and very recent experience, but available asap, so also someone who would be willing to phone in sick to attend the interview, walk out on their current employer without notice or without any commitments which would stop them from starting immediately.

I even said this to one recruiter, as politely as possible, as the only interview was the next day,and she'd called me around 5.30pm. She had no response other than if I really wanted the job I would find a way to get out of work! Great work ethic there. It's a no win situation for job seekers these days, whether employed or not.

AP007

falko89 wrote: »

This saying has been floating around for years but I really can't find the reasoning behind it, why would an employer want to hire me and pay me X amount per week, when he can get someone unemployed to do it for peanuts/min wage? I know in the past when at interviews and it comes up about me working at the moment this is the nail in the coffin, I can sense it.

So as I say I just really don't understand the meaning of this statement as to me it has always been the opposite.

A lot of agencies have clients who will not interview the uneployed for one.

A good job with good pay will pay the same regardless. Jobs for peanuts will be that whomever gets the job. Nothing to do with being out of work. If that was the case all the unemployed would get a new job tomorrow as they can pay less? I think not.

AP007

DigForVictory wrote: »

I think it *is* easier to get a job from working - access to copier/printer, free internet, .

It that using company equipment and services to help with your job search? Sackable offfence surely in most places I know.