Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

Undervalued

Andrea_jardin said:

We work to live, not live to work, so why are employers so bothered about gaps?!
If someone wants a take a couple of years to have a baby, travel the world or learn about art, it's not really the employer's business.

Apart from the few areas of discrimination prohibited by law (e.g race, gender etc) an employer is entitled to be "so bothered" about anything they choose to be "so bothered" about!

There is some (limited) protection regarding maternity and child care but "travelling the world and learning about art" is something the employer can view however they please. Some would see it as a plus point, particularly if it is relevant to the field of work, others may see it as not being committed to the normal career path if it is not directly relevant. Ultimately it is their choice.

TELLIT01

SingleSue said:

oscarward said:

I recently returned to work after a 18 month gap, I was asked for a referee to vouch for what I was doing .  Got the job anyway

I returned to work after a 12 year gap, they just wanted my CV and didn't bother with an interview.

For context however, I had worked for them when I was a teenager as firstly a part time summer job, then my first full time job on leaving school and then a part time job to pay for driving lessons as an extra to a (different) full time job. Trust forms a large part of my work as it is handling large sums of cash and as I had proved my trust worthiness back then, that was all they needed to know. 

However, during the time I had been away from work (I had caring duties to disabled family members), I had not been idle. I studied law and gained qualifications, I got my ECDL, qualifications in Counselling skills but the biggie was (and still is), owning and running a large website which requires me to manage and coordinate a large team of people from around the world, marketing, customer service etc etc.

The thing that puts employers off about me though is not my large gap, it's the fact I come with the constant companion of a wheelchair....

You had a full explanation of what had been happening the intervening 12 years.  The company you went to already knew you and may have taken you back on even without that information, but the reality is that most employers would be concerned if there was a 12 year gap in employment and absolutely no explanation.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

A_Lert

Sometimes feels like employers want it all. And I guess with another recession almost inevitable they'll be calling all the shots again.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

Asking people what their weakness is weeds out the people who have not prepared a good answer to that question, which everyone expects.  If you don't have a reasonable answer to that interview question then the chances are you won't be very good at anything.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

Asking people what their weakness is weeds out the people who have not prepared a good answer to that question, which everyone expects.  If you don't have a reasonable answer to that interview question then the chances are you won't be very good at anything.

Yes but my point is they throw in a load of irrelevant questions designed to trip you up with the purpose of shortening the list. If they ask relevant questions and you dont give a good answer then it is valid to hold it against you. To be fair there are some employers that dont go in for all the nonesense and take a more down to earth common sense approach.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

Asking people what their weakness is weeds out the people who have not prepared a good answer to that question, which everyone expects.  If you don't have a reasonable answer to that interview question then the chances are you won't be very good at anything.

Yes but my point is they throw in a load of irrelevant questions designed to trip you up with the purpose of shortening the list. If they ask relevant questions and you dont give a good answer then it is valid to hold it against you. To be fair there are some employers that dont go in for all the nonesense and take a more down to earth common sense approach.

I really don't get where you are coming from.  They want to shorten the list by finding the right person.  If they ask a question you struggle to answer, it broadly shows that people who can answer it well have better "soft" skills than you. Even if it's an irrelevant factual question, you can learn a lot from somebody's response - someone who sits there sullenly feeling they have been  "caught out"  is likely to deal with all difficulties in that way, someone who says "Oh, I am afraid I don't know, I haven't come across that, what is the answer?" is likely to be a much better bet.
Interviewers want to find the best person for the job. There are bad interviewers, but even they are usually working to a plan even if you can't see what it is.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

Asking people what their weakness is weeds out the people who have not prepared a good answer to that question, which everyone expects.  If you don't have a reasonable answer to that interview question then the chances are you won't be very good at anything.

Yes but my point is they throw in a load of irrelevant questions designed to trip you up with the purpose of shortening the list. If they ask relevant questions and you dont give a good answer then it is valid to hold it against you. To be fair there are some employers that dont go in for all the nonesense and take a more down to earth common sense approach.

I really don't get where you are coming from.  They want to shorten the list by finding the right person.  If they ask a question you struggle to answer, it broadly shows that people who can answer it well have better "soft" skills than you. Even if it's an irrelevant factual question, you can learn a lot from somebody's response - someone who sits there sullenly feeling they have been  "caught out"  is likely to deal with all difficulties in that way, someone who says "Oh, I am afraid I don't know, I haven't come across that, what is the answer?" is likely to be a much better bet.
Interviewers want to find the best person for the job. There are bad interviewers, but even they are usually working to a plan even if you can't see what it is.

My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews. Failing to give a good answer relevant to the job can tell them you arent up to it. If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it. Therefore they create questions they know will trip up some people. Its a lazy and cruel way to shorten the list. Dealing with the pressures of an interview is not the same as dealing with the pressures of the job unless the job involves answering awkward questions all day.

SingleSue

TELLIT01 said:

SingleSue said:

oscarward said:

I recently returned to work after a 18 month gap, I was asked for a referee to vouch for what I was doing .  Got the job anyway

I returned to work after a 12 year gap, they just wanted my CV and didn't bother with an interview.

For context however, I had worked for them when I was a teenager as firstly a part time summer job, then my first full time job on leaving school and then a part time job to pay for driving lessons as an extra to a (different) full time job. Trust forms a large part of my work as it is handling large sums of cash and as I had proved my trust worthiness back then, that was all they needed to know. 

However, during the time I had been away from work (I had caring duties to disabled family members), I had not been idle. I studied law and gained qualifications, I got my ECDL, qualifications in Counselling skills but the biggie was (and still is), owning and running a large website which requires me to manage and coordinate a large team of people from around the world, marketing, customer service etc etc.

The thing that puts employers off about me though is not my large gap, it's the fact I come with the constant companion of a wheelchair....

You had a full explanation of what had been happening the intervening 12 years.  The company you went to already knew you and may have taken you back on even without that information, but the reality is that most employers would be concerned if there was a 12 year gap in employment and absolutely no explanation.

Oh goodness yes, I was lucky that that particular job came up at that particular time..I call it my needle in a haystack job. I would have been completely beggered otherwise, the gap despite explanation put a few off (they believed the caring responsibilities would still occur), for some the addition of qualifications and other skills gained during my enforced gap got me to interview. However, despite being completely open about my disabilities on each application, there was always a look of shock when I arrived for interview and they would go with someone else who potentially would require less time off and therefore would be the better candidate.

I'm not bitter about it or resentful, they have to do what is best for their businesses and someone with my complex disabilities could well turn out to be more of a liability and hindrance than a help and as such, a risky option. As it turns out, I have a perfect attendance record thus far (3 years) but there was no way of knowing that would be the case.

k12479

donnajunkie said:
My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews....If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it.

I think you might be viewing the process a bit too narrowly. The conventional job application and interview process is hugely flawed, but that alternative methods aren't commonplace suggests there isn't really a better way of doing it, so far.

Secondly, whether someone 'can do' the job is not necessarily the top hiring priority. Whether someone 'fits' the organisation is often more important. Specifics of the role can be easily taught, attitude, ambition, social skills, initiative, etc. are much harder. The irritating "what are your weaknesses?" is one way to attempt to figure that out. Asking questions directly related to the job like "how do you make a pivot table in Excel?" tells hiring managers little about you as a person and whether you'd fit or not or your future potential in the business.