To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter Sun Jul 7 23:46:07 PDT 2013 Last Sunday I posted a message here, with the permission of the sender, who had found a good job with an electronics firm, after having applied 50 times for jobs at Intel, all with rejection. A hiring manager who subscribes to this e-newsletter replied to me with the message enclosed below, again posted here with the permission of the sender. Well, you all know the term "gatekeeper," and of course that describes the hiring policies that this manager cites to a T. (Not the manager's fault of course, as he is just the messenger here.) I can understand how applying for 50 positions might raise a red flag to some degree. But Intel is a huge company, with lots of openings (as their lobbyists keep telling us). Why shouldn't someone seeking work apply for all the jobs the person is qualified for? At any rate, if Intel does have such a policy, it is completely at odds with their claim to have a "chronic shortage" (Intel's frequent phrasing) of engineers. But let's put that 50X thing aside. The really troubling passage in the manager's message is, "Next, we don't know if he was employed at the time he applied to Intel. Some companies prefer to hire people who are currently employed." Ah, now the truth comes out! It is a truth that many job seekers have long suspected, of course, and a central tenet in advice I myself give, but it is a remarkable confession. Here I must interject my usual disclaimer: No employer should be forced to hire a weak worker. And there are lots of weak workers out there (whether American or H-1B). But to automatically reject a candidate out of hand, sight unseen, because he is unemployed and thus MAY be "suspect," is (a) again completely at odds with the industry's "shortage" claims, and (b) contrary to the employers' own interests. Unemployment happens. A company hits hard times, and lays people off. A worker has to make a move to another state, say due to family reasons. Whatever. Being unemployed doesn't mean there is "something wrong" with the person. And then the mother of all causes of unemployment: aging. The 27-year-old who has just been laid off will like find a new job very soon. Not true for the 37-year-old, whom employers will consider too expensive. I've mentioned many times my former student of about 15 years ago, who did all the right things. He earned a bachelor's in EE and master's in CS, and then did such outstanding innovative work at a major firm that he was personally written up in the Wall Street Journal. But then a merger came, followed by a huge layoff. After that, a repeating cycle of unemployment, lowered pay and further layoffs. The guy whose work had been lauded in the WSJ eventually bit the bullet and left the field. That incident illustrates a point I've often made: Aside from the human cost of all this, the nation as a whole is the real loser. We not only lose when good people are forced out, but even more so when poor career prospects dissuade talented students from pursuing a tech career in the first place. The president can incant the magic word "innovation" all he wants, but the sad truth is that the industry's policies are achieving the opposite of the stated goals. So, you ask me, what should Intel do to deal with the mountain of applications it receives, if not use filters like those above? That so-called "problem" is actually one of an embarrassment of riches. It is disingenuous, to say the least, for Intel to claim a "shortage" while spending more effort on gatekeeping than on filling jobs. Norm Archived at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/Rejected50XbyIntelResp.txt On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 06:28:27PM -0700, xxx wrote: Norm, I love your newsletter, but publishing this letter is unfortunate. There are two sides to the story. I'm a 60 year old manager in Silicon Valley and I've suffered what I believe to be age discrimination for at least the past 5 years. However, if I take a hiring manager's perspective of this letter, I can see many reasons why the applicant wasn't interviewed by Intel. Just the fact that he sent 50 resumes to the same company is a red flag. Most companies the size of Intel having automated tracking systems for resume. Once you've been passed-over for one job, sending your resume again for another, and another, raises a red flag. I don't know the circumstances of this candidate, but sending 50 resumes sounds excessive. If I were a hiring manager seeing his resume repeatedly, I'd be suspicious: is this guy "desperate"? I don't want to hire people who are desperate. I want people who want to work for me and my company. I know this is true for other companies, as I've been advised when I've been an applicant that I shouldn't send my resume repeatedly. Next, we don't know if he was employed at the time he applied to Intel. Some companies prefer to hire people who are currently employed. It's just another one of their subjective filters. This could be the case for Intel. If they receive hundreds of resumes for a job (happens often), they may filter down using this criteria. Finally, we don't even know what his resume looks like. Hiring managers make an assessment on the contents of the resume. Even a well-written resume may be ignored because of statements made somewhere in the description, or for the tone. It's totally subjective, and there's no way around it. I'm not taking sides. But I feel we should remain objective on this very important issue. I don't feel this letter is a good example of age discrimination. Hope this helps.