I Just Found Out Why Nobody Wants To Hire Me

[Evo]

I just found this article and find it ridiculous, but I guess it can be a real, but sad factor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizrya...out-why-nobody-wants-to-hire-me/#bc7fb028866f

I finally got fed up with my job and started job hunting. Six weeks went by and I didn't get one response. I was really surprised because I know my skills are current and it's not that easy to find people with my experience.

Finally I heard from a recruiter. He was really helpful. He said, "Are you getting much response from employers?" I said, "No, honestly I'm not."

He said, "I showed your resume to two of my clients. They like your background but they're concerned about one thing."

I said, "What is it?" He said, "It's your location."

I'm applying for jobs in the city. It's about 45 miles from my driveway to the center of the city. "My clients are afraid to hire people who live so far outside the city," said the recruiter. "They worry that you might not make it into work when it snows or there's any kind of weather."

 

[Bigjoemonger]

Is there a question?

 

[Evo]

Is there a question?

Yes, why does where one lives become a factor? I used to live a 2 1/2 hour commute one way to work and it wasn't a factor. My next door neighbor in PA worked in NY City, as did many of my neighbors. He took the train to work and stayed in an apartment in NY during the week, then took the train home Friday.

So when did where you live become a factor?

In Chicago, most workers live in the suburbs and take the train into Chicago to work each day.

 

[pi-r8]

Im not sure I believe this story. Living in the suburbs and commuting into the city is typical. Probably the most common situation, even. A 45 mile commute is not at all unusual.

 

[symbolipoint]

Im not sure I believe this story. Living in the suburbs and commuting into the city is typical. Probably the most common situation, even. A 45 mile commute is not at all unusual.

Both sides seem credible.

 

[Bigjoemonger]

In my experience when people say "there aren't any jobs" or "nobody will hire me for x reason" it actually means they arent actually trying or it happened once or twice. Simple fact is employers don't have to explain themselves why they do or do not want to hire someone.

I applied for a job while living 2.5 hours away. My lease ended and moved 4 states over. Then found out I got the job and moved 3 states back a month later. Where you live doesn't matter if you're willing to move for the job. I currently commute an hour to work, 50 miles each way, every day.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I know of a regular vanpool into DC - from West Virginia. Hardly a short commute.

 

[Joshy]

Good note. I don't have enough space on my resume and I consider it irrelevant for the position, and so I don't put my address on there.

 

[symbolipoint]

Good note. I don't have enough space on my resume and I consider it irrelevant for the position, and so I don't put my address on there.

One should list some contact information, which if a landline telephone number, could give some indication of general location.

 

[analogdesign]

This is bull. We just made an offer to an engineer living 55 miles away, in the Bay Area. This will be a 2-hour commute each way if the candidate accepts. Nobody cares where a candidate lives unless funds aren't available to provide relocation. And at any rate, no company will give relocation to someone 45 min away so this story is a just-so story.

 

[Evo]

Well, I've watched interviews with HR people that refused to hire a person because they didn't like their shoes, they weren't designer.

When I was at a Fortune 50 company, I was asked to help with the final screening of applicants after HR had thrown out most of the resumes. I was working with the hiring managers and our VP, we were throwing away resumes because of the paper, color, font or style without even reading them. We had advertised in the Wall Street Journal and received well over 100,000 resumes. This was a job making a 6 digit income and people knew it. We were tossing the resumes into the air so that they were landing in heaps on the floor in the corner. You really just do not know what reason you might not be hired for a position even though you are perfectly qualified. The most brutal was when the interviews started. I was shocked. One poor guy was physically grabbed by the VP and shoved out of the office because he arrived 5 minutes late. The poor guy kept saying "But you have to understand" ( he had come from NY City into NJ for the interview and had some bad luck). The VP kept shouting him down saying "No, I don't have to understand".

These were the people that hired me. When I moved there, they weren't hiring, I had previously worked for the company 7 years earlier in another state, so called someone that I used to work with and asked them to find out who the head of the area was. He sent me their contact info. The woman contacted me, but she said "You've got a lot of balls contacting me like this. I admire that. I'll give you one shot. You'll interview before a panel of my 3 managers simultaneously, at the end they will each give you a thumbs up or down. You need all three thumbs up and you're hired, one thumbs down and I never want to hear from you again.

I got the job.

So, if you are great, think you did extremely well in interviews, or didn't get an interview. It might not be you that is the problem, it could be the people in HR. For important jobs, it would help if you could get information about who is in the hiring process. Join groups where you can mingle with people in the know. I had a friend here that became a corporate headhunter, these are great people to get to know since they know most of the people that hire.

 

[gmax137]

I know of a regular vanpool into DC - from West Virginia. Hardly a short commute.

In the 1970s I had a summer job building houses in Northern Va (near Dulles airport). The sheetrock crew were all West Virginians who could no longer afford to be on-strike coal miners. Anyway, they had a van and drove the 2 1/2 hours each way, every day. They drank beer on the way home and coffee on the way in. I think a couple of them had that backwards...

I have definitely seen people not hired because of the long commute; the hiring manager's thought was, "he/she will stay here only until they find another job closer to home." I think the threshold for this depends on where the job is. An average commute time in the Bay area or DC wouldn't be considered credible in many parts of the country.

 

[CrysPhys]

Good note. I don't have enough space on my resume and I consider it irrelevant for the position, and so I don't put my address on there.

That’s a mistake. It’s a matter of supply and demand. At some places I’ve worked, one stage of sorting of resumes is by location: local vs. non-local. If there is a sufficiently large pool of local qualified applicants, there’s no need to incur travel expenses for bringing non-local candidates in for interviews, as well as potential relocation expenses. What happens in your instance, where there’s no info for a proper sort by location? Well, it goes into a third pile, “trash”.

I have definitely seen people not hired because of the long commute; the hiring manager's thought was, "he/she will stay here only until they find another job closer to home." I think the threshold for this depends on where the job is. An average commute time in the Bay area or DC wouldn't be considered credible in many parts of the country.

Exactly. Even if a company is not offering travel expenses for interviews and is not offerring relocation expenses, there is the real concern whether the employee will stay. It takes time and resources to bring someone on board, and program schedules can be disrupted when someone splits and a new replacement needs to be found. Especially in the aftermath of major downturns (such as 2000 – 2001 and 2008 – 2009), there were many people desperate for jobs, but couldn’t relocate for various reasons (spouse with a job, children in school, local housing crash, ...). So some went wherever for a job [e.g., renting an apartment in a new city or town, while leaving family back at home] and split as soon as their home job market improved. Again, it’s a matter of supply and demand. If you’ve demonstrated that you’re committed to the area, you’re more likely to be considered. On the other hand, many millennials prefer to live in San Francisco, and some hi-tech companies in Silicon Valley provide free private shuttle buses to/from work.

 

[CrysPhys]

I just found this article and find it ridiculous, but I guess it can be a real, but sad factor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizrya...out-why-nobody-wants-to-hire-me/#bc7fb028866f

But that article didn't specify the field of work and the role. I'm guessing that most of the people on this forum (including me) are scientists and engineers. I have friends and family in other fields such as business, finance, and law; I've also worked as a patent agent in a law firm. It's a lot different when your job involves dealing with clients on a short deadline, and it's essential that you show up when scheduled.

Consider a place such as New York City. Because of the terrain, snowfalls can vary a lot in the region. On one occasion this past winter, NYC had rain, while ~25 miles away in NJ, we had 18" of snow, and towns just ~5 miles from us had over 24" of snow (local mountains and lakes affect snowfall a lot). The governor of NJ declared a state of emergency. Even assuming you could make it to the train station, the trains weren't running. But business as usual in NYC. And demerits and reprimands for many employees who couldn't get in from Jersey.

 

[billy_joule]

Yes, why does where one lives become a factor? I used to live a 2 1/2 hour commute one way to work and it wasn't a factor.

That's 5 hours a day that you can't spend at working, resting or on leisure. Intuitively, one would expect this to have negative effects on productivity and life in general, the research seems to agree:

A 2014 British government survey found that workers with lengthy commutes felt more anxious and less satisfied with life than people with shorter ones. They were also less likely to find their daily activities worthwhile. Other studies have found that people with long commutes are more exhausted and less productive at work, and have lower job satisfaction. And a study conducted in Sweden in 2011 found that couples have a 40% higher chance of getting divorced when one partner commutes at least 45 minutes to work each day.

From https://hbr.org/2017/05/reclaim-your-commute (links to studies in article).

 

[Evo]

That's 5 hours a day that you can't spend at working, resting or on leisure. Intuitively, one would expect this to have negative effects on productivity and life in general, the research seems to agree:
From https://hbr.org/2017/05/reclaim-your-commute (links to studies in article).

Did I mention I also had 2 toddlers? And a husband that refused to commute, we lived 5 minutes from his office, he didn't take care of the kids, wouldn't pick them up or take them to daycare, wouldn't even pick up his own dry cleaning. He'd still be sleeping when I left in the morning. I did the shopping and the cooking, ran all of the errands, handled the finances. I got up at 4am every day in order to get the girls ready, to daycare, then make it to work by 8am, knowing how bad the traffic was and it was one lane each way for most of the way. I'd make it home by 8pm. But one reason I took the job was that I knew after I proved myself, I would be set up with a home office and be able to work from home. Hallelujah! But even then, I would work 12-16 hours a day, and 6-7 days a week. Yes, I was a work-a-holic. But It wasn't unusual for me to send off an email at 3 am asking someone a question and get an immediate response. We were all sick and twisted. But I was home when the girl's got home from school, I could take off in the middle of the day without asking, so the time spent paid off. But I also spent many years with lengthy commutes and no life before I got the ability to work at home. I didn't get that job until after I had my 2 kids.

I recently saw a show on tv about couples looking for homes. One man forced his family to bypass their dream home and take a much smaller, less pleasant home because the dream home was 30 minutes from his office, which he deemed too far, the crummy house was a 5 minute walk. Reminded me too much of my ex.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Did I mention I also had 2 toddlers? And a husband that refused to commute, we lived 5 minutes from his office, he didn't take care of the kids, wouldn't pick them up or take them to daycare, wouldn't even pick up his own dry cleaning. He'd still be sleeping when I left in the morning. I did the shopping and the cooking, ran all of the errands, handled the finances. I got up at 4am every day in order to get the girls ready, to daycare, then make it to work by 8am, knowing how bad the traffic was and it was one lane each way for most of the way. I'd make it home by 8pm. But one reason I took the job was that I knew after I proved myself, I would be set up with a home office and be able to work from home. Hallelujah! But even then, I would work 12-16 hours a day, and 6-7 days a week. Yes, I was a work-a-holic. But It wasn't unusual for me to send off an email at 3 am asking someone a question and get an immediate response. We were all sick and twisted. But I was home when the girl's got home from school, I could take off in the middle of the day without asking, so the time spent paid off. But I also spent many years with lengthy commutes and no life before I got the ability to work at home. I didn't get that job until after I had my 2 kids.

I recently saw a show on tv about couples looking for homes. One man forced his family to bypass their dream home and take a much smaller, less pleasant home because the dream home was 30 minutes from his office, which he deemed too far, the crummy house was a 5 minute walk. Reminded me too much of my ex.

Sounds to me your ex was an incredibly selfish man.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sounds to me your ex was an incredibly selfish man.

Yeah, but at least he had good taste in women.

 

[CrysPhys]

Did I mention I also had 2 toddlers? And a husband that refused to commute, we lived 5 minutes from his office, he didn't take care of the kids, wouldn't pick them up or take them to daycare, wouldn't even pick up his own dry cleaning. ...

... Reminded me too much of my ex.

After reading your first paragraph, I was not at all surprised to find mention of an "ex".

 

[Dr Transport]

I live in the District and my house is in the midwest, on a good day it is a 15 hour drive and I am still technically commuting because I haven't claimed residency anywhere close to where I work.

My financial advisor calls me a geographic bachelor. Not being hired because you live too far away is total BS.

 

[CrysPhys]

Not being hired because you live too far away is total BS.

Again, such a blanket statement does not hold. Depends on the field, responsibility, specific company, and available pool of qualified applicants. There are jobs that require only a computer and an InterNet connection; those can be performed remotely. I know guys who are field service techs. They spend most of their time hopping around client locations across the US; they really have no principal work location, other than for administrative purposes. But I also know guys who are plant maintenance engineers: they necessarily must be reliably on site.

I was working in a law firm in NJ when the recession hit in 2008. Our firm did OK and was actually growing. In other regions, law firms had substantial layoffs. One guy was layed off by a DC firm and interviewed with us. He had a house in MD, along with a wife who worked in DC and several kids in school. He said he'd rent an apt in NJ and go home on weekends; he insisted he was in it for the long haul. He was well qualified. But the partners had a strong feeling he'd split once the DC market improved. They hired a less qualified guy already settled in NJ.

 

[Chronos]

If you feel at a competitive disadvantage because you live 50 miles away, imagine how it feels when you are 50 years old and rehearsing 'welcome to walmart' for your next interview.

 

[Choppy]

One guy was layed off by a DC firm and interviewed with us. He had a house in MD, along with a wife who worked in DC and several kids in school. He said he'd rent an apt in NJ and go home on weekends; he insisted he was in it for the long haul. He was well qualified. But the partners had a strong feeling he'd split once the DC market improved. They hired a less qualified guy already settled in NJ.

I think this is the kind of thing that also really depends on how a candidate comes across in an interview. I think in some cases an employer is justified in denying a position if it appears there is a lack of long-term commitment. A candidate may not come right out and say "I'm just planning to stay here until something better comes along," but sometimes the evidence points in this direction. A permanent address in a different city would not in and of itself be sufficient evidence to fairly draw this conclusion, but it does tend to point in that direction. Coupled with other factors... a history of short-term positions despite opportunities for longer term work, specialization or a desire for training in an area the company does not deal with, not a great fit for the social culture, etc. those making the hiring decision may consider the candidate a risk for leaving.

All of that said, I think for anyone searching for a job who is concerned about living a long distance from their place of employment, rather than throwing up your hands and complaining about geographical favouritism the best thing to do is to do your best go gauge how realistic a problem this is in your own circumstances (remember that article was based on anecdotal evidence), and come up with a plan for addressing it. That could be anything from moving to a "more employable postal or zip code" to selling advantages such as "I like to carpool and could help cut costs and stresses down for any existing employees in my area."

 

[CrysPhys]

All of that said, I think for anyone searching for a job who is concerned about living a long distance from their place of employment, rather than throwing up your hands and complaining about geographical favouritism the best thing to do is to do your best go gauge how realistic a problem this is in your own circumstances (remember that article was based on anecdotal evidence), and come up with a plan for addressing it. That could be anything from moving to a "more employable postal or zip code" to selling advantages such as "I like to carpool and could help cut costs and stresses down for any existing employees in my area."

Yes, the article cited in Post #1 concludes with too sweeping a generalization, as do a couple of counter posts. To summarize, which statement is true:

The distance between an applicant's residence and potential job site is:

(a) always a factor in a hiring decision
(b) never a factor in a hiring decision
(c) sometimes a factor in a hiring decision.

 

[David Lewis]

When someone responds to a job posting, the first thing I ask is "What ZIP Code do you live in?" Nothing else matters to me until they make it past that hurdle. Workers who live close by have less tardiness, absenteeism and turnover, are more productive, and enjoy better quality of life. My job is to maximize worker retention because hiring and training is expensive.

 

[symbolipoint]

When someone responds to a job posting, the first thing I ask is "What ZIP Code do you live in?" Nothing else matters to me until they make it past that hurdle. Workers who live close by have less tardiness, absenteeism and turnover, are more productive, and enjoy better quality of life. My job is to maximize worker retention because hiring and training is expensive.

Completely Understandable. Distance from the job DOES MATTER!

 

[EngWiPy]

When someone responds to a job posting, the first thing I ask is "What ZIP Code do you live in?" Nothing else matters to me until they make it past that hurdle. Workers who live close by have less tardiness, absenteeism and turnover, are more productive, and enjoy better quality of life. My job is to maximize worker retention because hiring and training is expensive.

But what if someone is ready to completely relocate, and he/she doesn't have any commitment where they live, like a house, a working spouse or kids at school?

 

[David Lewis]

Fair question. That would not be a problem then. I would consider that candidate as favorably as anyone who lived nearby.

 

[CrysPhys]

When someone responds to a job posting, the first thing I ask is "What ZIP Code do you live in?" Nothing else matters to me until they make it past that hurdle. Workers who live close by have less tardiness, absenteeism and turnover, are more productive, and enjoy better quality of life. My job is to maximize worker retention because hiring and training is expensive.

But what if someone is ready to completely relocate, and he/she doesn't have any commitment where they live, like a house, a working spouse or kids at school?

Fair question. That would not be a problem then. I would consider that candidate as favorably as anyone who lived nearby.

But the key question is do you initially filter candidates based on zip code, so that you never even bring in non-local candidates for an interview and have a chance to find out what their personal situations are?

 

[David Lewis]

Yes. My screening process is based on statistical probabilities in order to save time. I will inadvertently reject some excellent employees in order to do my job quickly and efficiently. I am more concerned about accidentally hiring a loser, a dud, or someone that can cause trouble for the company.

Workers who live far away may pan out just fine, but it's not the norm in my experience. They usually burn out or quit, and I don't see much benefit in taking a chance when there are plenty of candidates from whom to choose.

 

[mathwonk]

This is obviously somewhat dependant on individual circumstances. In my case, as a college professor, I commuted 130 miles round trip for 26 years. I was usually at work as early or earlier than many others, and essentially always stayed there much later, hours after everyone else had gone home. One weekend I worked 33 hours straight. On another occasion, after working all day and all night, I commuted home in the early morning to check on my family, slept 45 minutes, and went back to work. The fact that you are facing a 2 hour commute home often makes you feel as if it is prudent to stay and work a bit longer. Other people were mostly not as extreme, and we did lose one very good professor who lived almost as far away as I did, who eventually left us and took a job closer to his home. But to be fair, the competing school also had a higher rep and paid better.

 

[symbolipoint]

There were a few people who worked in an industrial setting, but were buying houses to live in, 40 to 50 miles away. So when someone asked them about why, part of the answer was, the home prices. Not very high priced at that time; less populated place to live (at that time).

 

[EngWiPy]

Yes. My screening process is based on statistical probabilities in order to save time. I will inadvertently reject some excellent employees in order to do my job quickly and efficiently. I am more concerned about accidentally hiring a loser, a dud, or someone that can cause trouble for the company.

Workers who live far away may pan out just fine, but it's not the norm in my experience. They usually burn out or quit, and I don't see much benefit in taking a chance when there are plenty of candidates from whom to choose.

You mean when you hired people who lived far away, and didn't relocate burnt out and quit? If they relocated, I don't see any correlation between where a person lived before taking the job, and they quitting the job. I think without getting to the interview, these details of relocation won't be clear. Yes, employers mostly seem to consider local applicants, but the question is: how efficient and effective is actually the whole hiring process? I mean, taking all the precautions to hire the "best" candidate, how often does it turn out a good selection in terms of performance and employment duration?

 

[gmax137]

Hiring locally may make sense on an individual case, position by position, but I think it tends to flatten a company. Too many people from too few schools, too many people with the same background, makes for a duller work environment.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Does anyone here actually believe that the hiring process is somehow "fair," that there is no discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, or nationality, and that there is an attempt to find the "best qualified" candidate in some objective sense?