Other I Just Found Out Why Nobody Wants To Hire Me

[CrysPhys]

Those are both reasonable practices or both true, depending on the conditions that CrysPhys mentions; but also true, easier to hire a local person than a not-local person. A company operating in a big city can find many local candidates likely to be qualified and suited for an open job.

<<Emphasis added.>> Not necessarily. A few years ago, when I was working as a patent agent for a law firm on the East Coast, I got a call from a headhunter who asked me whether I was interested in moving to Chicago. For some inexplicable reason, there were around 4 law firms looking for patent agents with my technical background and experience. Now understand that law firms almost never pay relo for patent agents. But the firms couldn't find anyone suitable in the Chicago area, and were willing to pay for my relo, if I turned out to be a suitable candidate. So individual instances vary a lot.

 

[symbolipoint]

About relocation and who is and who is not in the local company area, THIS is the major idea linking the two:

So individual instances vary a lot.

 

[WWGD]

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.

2-hr commute for a 55-mile trip?

 

[gmax137]

2-hr commute for a 55-mile trip?

Do you think that's too long, or too short?

 

[WWGD]

Do you think that's too long, or too short?

Seems too long, 27mi/h. Maybe I am assuming there are expressways in the area which would allow for some 50 mi/hr plus some 10-15 minutes after exiting it. Even if using city roads it seems kind of long. But I admit I haven't looked at actual data.

 

[WWGD]

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.

In my experience it is more a matter of both the type ( public or private) and number of "legs" in the commute , e.g. a commute consisting of driving followed by public transportation, etc. is much worse than a commute of the same length of a single leg, specially with public transportation where you can do some work on your way to home ( and back, if needed).

 

[TeethWhitener]

Seems too long, 27mi/h. Maybe I am assuming there are expressways in the area which would allow for some 50 mi/hr plus some 10-15 minutes after exiting it. Even if using city roads it seems kind of long. But I admit I haven't looked at actual data.

I have a pretty standard commute in a US major metro area (45-60 min one way on an average day) which includes city and highway driving. My current car (a 2013 Toyota Corolla bought new) records average speed, and I’ve only reset it a handful of times. It currently reads 27 mph.

Edit: this speed is actually probably a bit high for my everyday commute, which is only 18 miles or so.

 

[WWGD]

I have a pretty standard commute in a US major metro area (45-60 min one way on an average day) which includes city and highway driving. My current car (a 2013 Toyota Corolla bought new) records average speed, and I’ve only reset it a handful of times. It currently reads 27 mph.

Edit: this speed is actually probably a bit high for my everyday commute, which is only 18 miles or so.

I am likely off, given I have taken public transportation most of the time.

 

[symbolipoint]

Alike to the current topic's drift,
I knew some people who traveled by their own automobile, 50 miles each way to and from work. That is far, but it was also what some people were willing to do. Not everyone will tolerate such a commute.

 

[WWGD]

Alike to the current topic's drift,
I knew some people who traveled by their own automobile, 50 miles each way to and from work. That is far, but it was also what some people were willing to do. Not everyone will tolerate such a commute.

But don't you think the "1-legedness" helps, i.e. not having to change modes of transportation? What burnt me out was having to take one train, wait for a second one in the cold and then walk. Had it been a single train ride, I could have handled it and even work during the commute.

 

[Nik_2213]

Been a while, but I discovered I'd probably beaten out several 'better qualified' applicants because I had two mostly-reliable bus routes available. One tediously trundled around the city circumference, was almost door to door. The other, to be caught a brisk walk away, was an express, based at a different depot, and ran through the city centre...

 

[Zap]

I think it could matter and it could also not matter. There are too many hidden variables here. I would relocate even if it wasn't paid for, but sometimes even that might not matter. I think in the majority of cases, it doesn't matter for a good decent paying job, assuming you're a qualified candidate. For low paying jobs, it matters more. For example, if you have an interview at McDonalds, but you live 1,000 miles away from the restaurant. You're not getting the job, unless you want to travel 1,000 miles to the interview. I think the OP is BS because that can't possibly be the number one reason for not being able to find a job, even though it is a factor. There are a hundred other factors. Maybe he chews his lips during an interview, and they said, well heck we can hire this other guy with zero obsessive compulsive habits who happens to live closer. Who knows. Location can't be the number one reason. If "they" (extraterrestrial beings) want to hire you, then they'd hire you, or at least ask you to move closer. Unless of course it's for a job that doesn't require qualified candidates, like the aforementioned scenario at McDonalds.

 

[CrysPhys]

Been a while, but I discovered I'd probably beaten out several 'better qualified' applicants because I had two mostly-reliable bus routes available. One tediously trundled around the city circumference, was almost door to door. The other, to be caught a brisk walk away, was an express, based at a different depot, and ran through the city centre...

<<Emphasis added.>> This thread is getting a bit bizarre. What exactly did you find out? The employer evaluated several candidates; asked each of them details of their planned modes of transportation; and picked you because you had the most reliable, even though you were otherwise less qualified?

 

[CrysPhys]

In my experience it is more a matter of both the type ( public or private) and number of "legs" in the commute , e.g. a commute consisting of driving followed by public transportation, etc. is much worse than a commute of the same length of a single leg, specially with public transportation where you can do some work on your way to home ( and back, if needed).

But you missed the entire point of David Lewis's posts. He initially filters out resumes by zip code. He doesn't want to waste any time getting involved with the intricacies of anyone's commute. So a candidate living outside his geographical area of interest never gets the opportunity to explain why his commute may not be a problem (e.g., you live next to a train station and can take an express; and the destination station is a short walk to work).

 

[pinball1970]

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

Yes it’s a factor.

Law of averages says the further you are away from work, the more chance something that something can go wrong between A and B and delay you or stop you from getting to work completely.

Also you have to get up earlier and a long drive is effectively dead time and or stress time.

If you are on public transport at least you can reads mails, chill and read book or even sleep but you still have to get up earlier to make your bus/train.

I would say very long drive look to move, car share or public transport if you can join the dots and its cost effective.

 

[WWGD]

But you missed the entire point of David Lewis's posts. He initially filters out resumes by zip code. He doesn't want to waste any time getting involved with the intricacies of anyone's commute. So a candidate living outside his geographical area of interest never gets the opportunity to explain why his commute may not be a problem (e.g., you live next to a train station and can take an express; and the destination station is a short walk to work).

Yes , I meant it more as a side-comment; will try to stay on track in any additional post I make.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's interesting that no one in this thread has made any comments whatsoever on telecommuting (i.e. working from home). An increasing number of jobs these days can be done remotely from any location with readily available Internet access, thus allowing employers to no longer be bound by geography in terms of hiring decisions.

I work for a company which has employees located all over the world, across 3 continents, all working remotely. All meetings are held via Skype or Webex, and I meet with clients via the same methods as well. This takes the commuting factor out of the equation entirely.

 

[vela]

Seems too long, 27mi/h. Maybe I am assuming there are expressways in the area which would allow for some 50 mi/hr plus some 10-15 minutes after exiting it. Even if using city roads it seems kind of long. But I admit I haven't looked at actual data.

I have a commute that’s about 55 miles long twice a week. Most of it is on freeways, and it takes me about 1.25 hours one way. I fortunately don’t encounter much traffic. If I did, it could easily stretch into the two-hour range.

 

[WWGD]

I have a commute that’s about 55 miles long twice a week. Most of it is on freeways, and it takes me about 1.25 hours one way. I fortunately don’t encounter much traffic. If I did, it could easily stretch into the two-hour range.

Ok, but then that is a rate of 44 mi/h, significantly higher than the 27 mi/ h from Crys' commute.
.

 

[vela]

Ok, but then that is a rate of 44 mi/h, significantly higher than the 27 mi/ h from Crys' commute.

Yeah, but I don't run into significant traffic because of when and in what direction I make the commute. If I had to drive 55 miles north of where I live at 7 AM, it could easily take more than two hours.

 

[CrysPhys]

It's interesting that no one in this thread has made any comments whatsoever on telecommuting (i.e. working from home). An increasing number of jobs these days can be done remotely from any location with readily available Internet access, thus allowing employers to no longer be bound by geography in terms of hiring decisions.

I work for a company which has employees located all over the world, across 3 continents, all working remotely. All meetings are held via Skype or Webex, and I meet with clients via the same methods as well. This takes the commuting factor out of the equation entirely.

<<Emphasis Added>> I brought this up way back in Post #21:

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.

But even for jobs that can be done remotely, some company policies just won't allow telecommuting. I worked for a law firm that nixed it; the bosses wanted to keep a close watch on us. And my daughter currently works for an organization that repeatedly has said "Nyet!" every time someone proposes it.

Sometimes there is weird retrogression. I worked for a Big Telcom Megacorps when the InterNet Bubble Burst of 2000 - 2001 hit. It had taken years for telecommuting permissions to be granted. But in the aftermath of the bubble burst, people realized that if your job could be done remotely from 50 or 100 miles away, it could just as readily be done remotely from thousands of miles away ... in India. Suddenly, employees were scrambling to get offices back.

 

[gmax137]

Seems too long

in the Bay Area

That says it all, Bay Area traffic has to be seen to be believed. Some of the freeways have toll-charge express lanes where the toll is like $5 for two or three miles, and then another charge for the next few miles, and so on. That tells you how slow the free non-express lanes are moving.

 

[WWGD]

That says it all, Bay Area traffic has to be seen to be believed. Some of the freeways have toll-charge express lanes where the toll is like $5 for two or three miles, and then another charge for the next few miles, and so on. That tells you how slow the free non-express lanes are moving.

No Ez-pay electronic options?

 

[gmax137]

yes, its electronic with transponders. But how many $$ per mile would you pay?

 

[WWGD]

yes, its electronic with transponders. But how many $$ per mile would you pay?

Ok, I see.

 

[russ_watters]

Google tells me my 13 mile commute home will take 44 minutes.

 

[WWGD]

Google tells me my 13 mile commute home will take 44 minutes.

Is that accurate in your case?

 

[russ_watters]

Is that accurate in your case?

That one was, but it often underestimates.

 

[StatGuy2000]

<<Emphasis Added>> I brought this up way back in Post #21:
But even for jobs that can be done remotely, some company policies just won't allow telecommuting. I worked for a law firm that nixed it; the bosses wanted to keep a close watch on us. And my daughter currently works for an organization that repeatedly has said "Nyet!" every time someone proposes it.

The law firm that you speak of where the bosses wanted to keep a close watch on you sounds to me like a company with a "toxic" work culture that does not respect the intelligence or the dedication of their workers.

As for the organization that repeatedly denies proposals for telecommuting -- I wonder if this is due to simple resistance to change, or the expenses involved from IT's end in setting up a secure server.

Sometimes there is weird retrogression. I worked for a Big Telcom Megacorps when the InterNet Bubble Burst of 2000 - 2001 hit. It had taken years for telecommuting permissions to be granted. But in the aftermath of the bubble burst, people realized that if your job could be done remotely from 50 or 100 miles away, it could just as readily be done remotely from thousands of miles away ... in India. Suddenly, employees were scrambling to get offices back.

I find the attitude of the employees from your former employer in the telecom industry curious. After all, if a company already determines that it is cheaper to set up shop in India or other countries with lower costs of labour, they would have done so already. Outsourcing to India and other countries have taken place long before telecommuting became a thing.

At the end of the day, if employees were worried that their jobs were about to be outsourced, then it will happen, whether there is telecommuting or not. Better to leave and find another company that will both allow telecommuting as an option, while providing an overall better work environment.