Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S.Laws May Make Online Job Hunting Harder

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the hunting-down-that-scourge dept.

Businesses 433

j00bar writes "CNN/Fortune is reporting that applying for a job online is going to get harder. 'New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect starting today for jobs at federal contractors -- and similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees. And resumes and search approaches that worked perfectly well before may no longer do the trick.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Might be difficult.... (5, Insightful)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661765)

According to this definition, an applicant must "express interest" in the job... That "expression of interest" must show that he or she has all the qualifications for the job listed in the company's job description (not just some or most of them)...
By this definition, it's going to be difficult to "express interest" in the job listings for most tech companies, which are often loaded with specific qualifications (i.e. "Perl, JavaScript 1.0, Quark, MS Office, and Doom 3 experience"). I've never been to an interview for a job I eventually landed where I met 100% of their qualifications.

Re:Might be difficult.... (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661828)

I agree.
This may mean that companies have to stop from the absurd practice of over specifing what they need.

The jobs I have really excelled at have been the ones where I didn't have all the qualifications.

Re:Might be difficult.... (1)

gronofer (838299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661955)

Companies would want to reduce it, if this thing was taken seriously. Otherwise they'd be forced to select from the tiny number of applicants who have somehow managed to tick off all of the requirements.

The applicants with the greatest diversity of "skills" could be the ones who have moved jobs a lot, and presumably won't stay long with the new employer either.

It also gives a big boost to the applicants who are prepared to use a bit of creative exageration on their CV. Some of these things may be plausibly too hard or too time-consuming to verify.

Re:Might be difficult.... (2, Insightful)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661963)

This may mean that companies have to stop from the absurd practice of over specifing what they need.
The ones that make me laugh are the "4 years of XML/SOAP" requirements. Yeah, there are like 3 people in the country that qualify on that basis.

Re:Might be difficult.... (2, Funny)

PTS Tech (932180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662170)

Yep. Remember one ad I saw last year, seeking someone with 5 years of Server 2003 experience. Sorry, but only the guys that WROTE it saw that much of it, and I think they were making a wee bit more than 28K per annum. I wish I had kept a copy of that for posting...

Re:Might be difficult.... (1)

Thundermace (951553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662219)

you forgot my favorite when .Net was first released and employers were asking for 5 years .Net experience, or maybe another favorite of mine, I applied for a job in 2001 for an NT administrator and was told I need 5 years of AD experience....Fun things like that....

Re:Might be difficult.... (5, Funny)

Kawolski (939414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661974)

You don't meet our qualifications? [ridiculous...stings.com]

Required skills are:

Linux Operating Systems (RedHat, CentOS)
Linux Run Levels and Services Configuration (both xinetd and individual services)
Server/System Troubleshooting Skills
BASH scripting
Basic PERL
IPTables and Firewall Technologies
Load-Balancer Technologies
Intel Architecture Hardware Troubleshooting
Windows Server Administration
MSSQL, MySQL, and Sybase Administration
SSH Protocol Key Authentication
PHP Scripting
Apache Configuration
Mail Technologies (qmail, milters, spamassassin, clamav)
Tomcat Configuration
The importance of documentation and repeatable process.
Long-term architectural planning.
3 to 5 years of experience required

Job is located in downtown Portland
Job location is Portland, OR

Compensation: $15/hr

Re:Might be difficult.... (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662238)

Are you kidding me? Those are halfway reasonable. (Though not at that pay scale.) Some of the best postings were the ones that demanded:
  • 20 Years of Java Experience
  • 10 Years of Web Design in HTML 4.0 or XHTML
  • 7 Years of C# Experience
  • 8 Years of D (or some other obscure/unknown language or technology)
  • 15 Years of J2EE and XML


For even more fun, require all of the above in the same job posting! It's no wonder that applicants get creative with their resumes. Human Resource Managers don't want to hear "But the language hasn't existed that long!"

Thanks to that, I think many companies don't take my resume seriously. (I don't lie. I try not to stretch the truth either.) They immediately take whatever is said, assume that it's exaggerated, then knock it back several notches. The only time you can get anywhere is when they have those "proficiency tests" (so bloody easy to pass) at which point they start taking you seriously.

Don't even get me started on interviewers who ask you to quote the documentation. ("What method do you call to set the text of a label?" WTF kind of question is that? Go read the documentation if you don't know! That's what it's for!)

Re:Might be difficult.... (1)

cliveholloway (132299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662267)

Are you kidding me? Those are halfway reasonable. (Though not at that pay scale.)

Take another look. You appear to be good at using bold and italics for emphasis, yet appear to have a problem seeing that in others' posts.

Re:Might be difficult.... (5, Insightful)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661978)

It's cynical, but I believe they do this to make all of their applicants underqualified. That gives them a reason to pay them less than top of the scale. Where they list the job as $50,000-$75,000, you don't have the required 14 years of .Net experience so you're going to have to accept the $52,000.

On the other hand, I know that some managers just don't understand it well enough to write a good position description. I've had to write several PDs (sometimes for a job I was leaving, sometimes for a position I was hiring, and finally sometimes because the higher-ups didn't like my level of job security). It's usually best done by someone who can do the job himself, but the next best thing is to define the roles and very basic requirements - will need to create web applications in a Linux-based environment.

Just because it could be done in PHP, Perl, Ruby, Python, or Java doesn't mean you have to list all of those. And if the language hasn't been selected yet, why bother listing it at all? There are excellent developers with PHP and Ruby experience that will be turned off from the suggestion that they need to use Java.

Ok, I'm lost. (5, Insightful)

Kawolski (939414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661776)

From TFA: To comply with these new rules and get the most diversity, employers will have an incentive to keep the pool of applicants for each job relatively small and as random as possible.

So in order to get a more diverse and random selection of applicants, we're going to shrink the qualified applicant pool by making it more difficult to apply for a job? Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to increase diversity? I would think that if you want a more diverse selection, you would want to increase the qualified applicant pool so you have more people to choose from.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (1, Flamebait)

mickyflynn (842205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661810)

by increased diversity they mean freezing out straight, white, christian males from the country that their straight, white, christian male ancestors founded in order to instill the rights they fought, and many died for, for themselves and their posterity (us). Diversity is just a code word for institutionalized racism against white people.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661894)

Ding!

We have a correct answer!

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0, Flamebait)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661943)

Ah, many more groups of people than straight, white, Christian males founded, fought for, died for, and built this great nation. Have you even studied US History? Have you even read a book on US History? Have you even glanced at the United States History [wikipedia.org] wikipedia entry?

Interesting (1)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662019)

I don't see anywhere in that post where he claimed it was ONLY white christian males that founded the US.

So, what led you to believe that was what he meant?

PS, we all know what it was, but I'm interested to see if you'll admit it.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661952)

That's OK. They can get jobs as replacement Danish cartoon artists as the other ones get killed off for being insensitive.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661958)

Diversity is just a code word for institutionalized racism against white people.

Nope. It's also used to turn highly-qualified Asian students away from the University of California system.

-jcr

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (3, Funny)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662026)

Yeah, but all those black lesbian disabled 'Nam vets have to work somewhere....

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0, Flamebait)

zzyzx (15139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661966)

Yeah it's really rough to be a straight, white, Christian male in this country. It's too bad that no one who fits that profile could ever gain political power or be appointed to the Supreme Court or be in charge of a Fortune 500 company or anything like that.

What these rules do is reduce the advantage that the majority culture has, not to give an advantage to minorities. Sure, it feels bad to have that happen, but this is like someone being given a 30 meter advantage in a 100 meter dash and complaning because they used to get a 40 meter advantage.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662283)

Yeah it's really rough to be a straight, white, Christian male in this country. It's too bad that no one who fits that profile could ever gain political power or be appointed to the Supreme Court or be in charge of a Fortune 500 company or anything like that.

Great, so 1% of white christian males have a shot at being wildly successful. What about the remaining 99% of us that have as much chance of getting on the SCOTUS or becoming a majorly successful CEO as every other race or gender? The ones without the political, industrial, or familial connections necessary to move up the socio-economic ladder. Are we to be penalized because the vast minority of people that actually become successful are white christian males?

Yes, there are people with 40 meter advantages in a 100 meter dash. Yes, they are overwhelmingly white males. And they account for a very small percentage of people overall.

Tell me, what advantage inherent in the system gives me an advantage as a white male? Do online job application sites make it easier for whites? Is the coding racist? No. Any problem in the system is with the people in the system. And Im not about to claim that there aren't bad people in the system, because there are. But you can't legislate away discrimination.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661968)

Ah yes, those poor suffering white people. Why, they worked so damn hard to a) kill millions of Native Americans (which the first right brilliant whites thought were Indians), b) bring in Africans to fill in the sudden drop in the cheap labor pool, c) declare those lucky Africans to be non-persons and property, d) have a few nasty wars against each other in which some whites convinced Indians that they were really friends before e) attempting to wipe them out of the Great Plains so that whites could move in.

You know, if white Europeans hadn't gone around and made their presence known throughout the entire planet by a combination of villainy, trickery and outright infamy, I might even agree with you, but seeing as how whites became rather notorious among a lot of people for their racist, self-serving, self-important attitudes, it's pretty tough to find a warm place now.

Ah I see (2, Insightful)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662051)

So you're saying that because generations of EUROPEAN whites engaged in villainous acts, it's ok to punish their ancestors?

What's that saying about two wrongs...

Re:Ah I see (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662233)

I offer an explanation. It's up to you decide what to do with it. You can reject the attrocities white Europeans committed, or make believe that they don't somehow relate to the world as it is today. That's your privilege.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (3, Funny)

gronofer (838299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662032)

I still don't see how a bit of bureaucracy is going to freeze out "straight, white, christian males". These are the sort of people who thrive on bureaucracy.

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662185)

christian male ancestors

LOL. Believing that God randomly grants "enlightenment" != salvation via believing in Jesus Christ the Savior.

You should look up what religions our founders actually belonged to, it makes your ranting look more informed. Many of the people we call "founding fathers" were atheists, Calvinists, Naturalists, Jews, and yes, Christians. Many of the masses that populated the country were Calvinists (the vast majority of the Dutch were at that time, as were some in England, who joined those fleeing from the unstable government-controlled Christian religion which had recently tossed out the Catholics and replaced with Protestants just so the king could get a divorce (and you thought separation of church and state was a bad idea, didn't you?)

That's what government solutions do for you (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661868)

When will the leftist /. sheep realize that giving money to the government is a BAD idea?

No matter what they claim it will be used for?

Whatever happened to The Most Qualified Apllicant? (3, Interesting)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662151)

You would THINK that allowing companies to hire the most qualified applicants for the job would be sufficient.

Sorry, but you do not have a RIGHT to a job. And especially to any PARTICULAR job. You only have the right to compete for the position. But what's REALLY boggling my mind is this is coming out of an administration that is supposedly so far in bed with business interests, that the resultant child is several weeks overdue. . . .

Re:Ok, I'm lost. (0, Troll)

Soviet Assassin (815206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662189)

So in order to get a more diverse and random selection of applicants, we're going to shrink the qualified applicant pool by making it more difficult to apply for a job?

So, more poor people without jobs are going to have an even more difficult time trying to get a job? Way to go bush...

No end to the red tape, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661780)

New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect starting today for jobs at federal contractors -- and similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees.

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone bothers to vote for the GOP anymore. For all I can tell, the true Republicans have departed for the Grey Havens with Bilbo and the Elves.

Re:No end to the red tape, as usual (0, Offtopic)

dc29A (636871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661873)

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone bothers to vote for the GOP anymore.

Because GoP will fight the War on Terror.

Re:No end to the red tape, as usual (1)

citizenklaw (767566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662103)

Remember, it's The War on Terror©

Re:No end to the red tape, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661876)

Wow, way to boil down a subject of serious concern to /.'ers into a highly-construed, blanket rant against Republicans. Great flamebait, man.

Re:No end to the red tape, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661946)

Because GoP will fight the War on Terror.

WoT?!

Good (1)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661781)

I think we can all see from real-world examples such as Wal-mart how necessary this is. Corporations are out to make a dollar, the only reason they have in the current market to keep their workforce diversified is to avoid getting sued. Hopefully this will make sure that more subtle discrimination is kept in check.

Re:Good [using what twisted logic?] (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662052)

I think we can all see from real-world examples such as Wal-mart how necessary this is. Corporations are out to make a dollar, the only reason they have in the current market to keep their workforce diversified is to avoid getting sued. Hopefully this will make sure that more subtle discrimination is kept in check.

What nonsense. If a corporation was only hiring people "to make a dollar," then they'd only hire the most effective, efficient people possible. You know, hiring people based on their actual merit. For that matter, if "making a dollar" is partly accomplished by lowering your overhead, then hiring the people willing to work for the least (in non-demanding retail positions, for example) would also be standard practice... and based on demographics, that would disporportionately result in the hiring of minorities and recent immigrants. So, no need to worry about quotas, right?

Or, am I confused about what you think is the "subtle discrimination" as it relates to how a corporation "makes a buck?" How, in your view, does discrimination help a large corporation actually make a buck? Or are you making a very sly, dubious, stealthy comment implying that minorities aren't as able to help an employer make a buck? Make some damn sense, or be more honest about your biases.

Re:Good (1)

fujiman (912957) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662055)

With all due respect, if a company is out to make a dollar, discrimination isn't a problem. Think this through. If a company (Wal-Mart is a popular target) wants to make the most amount of money, they will hire the cheapest labor they can get away with.

In fact, if you look at Wal-Mart's problems of late, it is because they hired minorities of questionable immigration status. That's a "diversity" issue of another sort.

I'm not defending anyone here, but do not equate all evils as mutually supportive. Just because Greed and Discrimination are both bad --- it doesn't mean they go hand-in-hand.

Actually (re:Peart), Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear go hand-in-hand ;)

How can they do this (2, Insightful)

Soviet Assassin (815206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661791)

I mean, seriously, its like none of their freakin business. Doesnt this help kill 'free enterprise' or deminish capitalism? This is like communist USSR here.

It is our place and decision to run online employment boards how we see fit and put up descriptions of our jobs and post our skills to our own likings. We are free to find the people who we think may be good at the job by looking at their resume

Plus, what the crap, if I "apply" for a job online they look at my resume and they talk to me, they setup and interview. Now if some @#*(%& employer hires an employee purely based off what is said of a bleeding website then they deserve a crappy employee.

IMHO, of course.

Re:How can they do this (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662022)

IMNSHO, too.

Best, Paul

* .. Not So ..

Re:How can they do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662286)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have a degree in missing sarcasm? *modded redundant*

Re:How can they do this (0, Troll)

middlemen (765373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662146)

I mean, seriously, its like none of their freakin business. Doesnt this help kill 'free enterprise' or deminish capitalism? This is like communist USSR here.

Looking at the way USA is moving now (with Iraq and other slimy/greasy/"oil"-y politics), I wonder if they ever had anything against USSR being communist. Maybe "communism" was just a distraction thrown towards the Americans so that USA could beat USSR in doing stuff. All USA wanted to be was the biggest superpower and ruler nation of the world, and it is right now. Who knows what these politicians are thinking!! Of course this is all science fiction in my mind.

Re:How can they do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662197)

Capitalism is not a good thing and the USSR was not communist (and no nation ever has been).

So in other words (4, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661796)

Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.

Good one.

Re:So in other words (1)

computer_redneck (622060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661887)

Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.

I would think that this goes against the EOE laws. If an employer asks me my age and I do not get the job I can sue for age descrimination. I believe most of those criteria are actually illegal in choosing a employee. Also most of the laws are upheld by the Supreme Court which means this could easily get thrown out, I would think.


Support our Troops
Impeach our President

Re:So in other words (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662095)

Actually, this is right in step with the Affirmative Action laws. Affirmative Action states that you can't hire less of some specific group (race, gender, whatever) that you have reasonably available (well, not really, but that's the way it gets interpreted generally). The best way to determine the availability of qualified applicants for the job is to keep a list of what applicants come in on what percentage of race.

So if you have a position, and 10% of the qualified applicants (people that met all posted qualifications) are Martian but your workforce for that job is only 5% Martian, there's a good chance that the EEOC will come down on you for not meeting affirmitave action criteria.

And, of course, all that contradicts the statements that affirmative action is not there to set quotas. Basically it's a big ol' gray area that can cause lots of headaches for employers, and it's in their best interest to do whatever they can to back themselves up against discrimination lawsuits. This site [dol.gov] has an overview that's not filled with too much legalese.

Here is a question (5, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661935)

What if claim that I am a African American, but I am actually white. Can they quantify and measure my race, will they sent to a local eugenics clinic to measure the size of my head or take my DNA to identify my race?

What would happen, if I just tell them that my grand-grand-grand father came from Africa so deep down I feel like I am part of a minority?

Actually I never check the "White" or "Caucasian" box on the race section on the forms, because putting myself in a race category just reinforces the fact that there are race categories and people are somehow treated differently because of it. Actually the word "Caucasian" comes directly from studies of eugenics at the turn of the century and I consider using it just as offensive as someone using the "n"-word, because it implies endorsing the values and attitudes of the time.

Re:Here is a question (1, Insightful)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662098)

I always claim "asian" because my grandparents were from Siberia.

Oh, and just because I hate it, it's NIGGER.

When you say "N-word" as some lame attempt to avoid using it, you empower the "n-word" in exactly the same way. Stop doing that.

Re:Here is a question (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662216)

Well that's the thing. I didn't want to use "nigger" because it might offend some people. I was not trying to offend or upset anyone. I just don't want any discrimination -- direct or reverse in the workplace. I can see how some people would be upset by it because it brings back the attitudes and attrocities commited during the time when the word was acceptable. But I can see your point too...

By the way, I could claim I am Asian too, I come from Russia and my father definetly has mongoloid face features -- Ghengis Khan is probably not that far in my family tree ... "Yey, I am a minority now too!" ;-)

Re:Here is a question (1)

CoderBob (858156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662171)

I always check "Other" and write in "American". I actually had standardized school tests in high school not give me my results because of it. They couldn't count me towards the test scores, apparently.

Stupid standarized testing.

Re:Here is a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662222)

They couldn't count me towards the test scores, apparently.

What kind of test was that? Was the result supposed to be corrected for race?

Re:Here is a question (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662200)

I used to work with a guy who was an immigrant from South Africa. Racially, he was Caucasian.

But, he was entirely justified in clicking the "African-American" block: after all, he WAS an African who became an American. . .

Re:Here is a question (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662218)

I always click on the "decline to answer" option. If it really doesn't matter and they're not supposed to use it in determining why I get a job or not, why are they asking me?

Re:Here is a question (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662300)

> What if claim that I am a African American, but I am actually white. Can they quantify and measure my race, will they sent to a local eugenics clinic to measure the size of my head or take my DNA to identify my race?

Go for it.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry, of Mozambique, is an African-American.
Nelson Mandela, of South Africa, is not an African-American.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you. Any company that would circular-file an application when you remind them of those two facts, isn't a company you want to work for.

Oh like it's not hard enough already!? (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661803)

Searching and applying for jobs online is already difficult enough. With applicant pools numbering in the thousands for many jobs, it's already a royal pain in the ass to get in for an interview. Aside from that, even if you do get an interview it might be one of those "well, we know we won't hire this one but we need to interview X number of people" and you end up being asked such illustrious questions as "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?" (yes, an actual interview question for a part-time job at $8.50/hr).

Keep your resume up-to-the-minute current. "The rules allow companies to pick a random pool of applicants by searching the job boards for 'most recent' qualified applicants," Crispin notes. "In those cases, no one will even look at a resume that is more than two or three weeks old." Yikes.

Oh whatever, if the company is looking for someone with experience that most don't have they are going to look closely at the resumes. If anyone can do the job in the applicant pool they aren't going to care one way or the other.

For the jobs that I have interviewed for through monster.com and careerbuilder.com applications, I have received a few offers -- none of which bettered my current job security and benefits (the pay was better).

We don't need laws to make it more difficult to find work -- we need laws that make the jobs we have better than they already are.

Re:Oh like it's not hard enough already!? (2, Insightful)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661835)

I agree. All we need is a bunch of new government regulations to make it harder for employers and employees to get together.

Has someone looked at the low unemployment rates recently and decided something had to be done to raise them, or what?

Re:Oh like it's not hard enough already!? (2, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661999)

Unemployment rates are only low if you believe the stupid method the government uses to count the unemployed. Anyone over age X or under age Y pretty much doesn't count. Anyone that's been unemployed more than Z number of months doesn't count. That kind of bullshit. They can still be starving and living in a box but they no longer count as unemployed. From what I've seen they also don't seem to do much of a comparison between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed. Last time I looked at a state listing the state had somewhere around 200,000 officially unemployed people and about 2,000 open job positions (most of which were crappy low paying jobs). You do the math there. 200,000 people needing jobs in a month. 2,000 jobs available. After six months (maybe not the right length of time - I'm going from memory) you just get dropped from the official numbers. To me that would seem to leave 188,000 people unemployed after six months that are no longer counted. Seems not to be a very realistic way of counting.

Leave it to the gov't (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661805)

To totally hose a good system to make it "fair" to people. Sorry, applying for jobs is not a "random" process. Both the worker and the company want what is best for them. picking people at "random" hurts the applicant and the company by bad pairings. way to go dc, inefficency is key!

It only applies to FEDERAL JOBS (0)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661808)

GEEZ...

This applies to contractors who are going to provide employees/contractors to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOBS. Not all business in the US. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20051958 .htm [dol.gov]

Re:It only applies to FEDERAL JOBS (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661861)

At first, then it is rolling out to all eomplyers with over 50 employees.

Yeah that's what it SAYS (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661908)

But I have yet to find any government links to back up that assertation.

I'm not even aware of any CURRENT rules that state that HR departments have to keep applications stored for x amount of years to verify EEOC/Diversity requirements.

(Current employees yes... applications? No.)

Re:Yeah that's what it SAYS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662008)

I'm not even aware of any CURRENT rules that state that HR departments have to keep applications stored for x amount of years to verify EEOC/Diversity requirements.

Have you ever known a federal or state program to shrink its scope? Its just the nature of the beast to try and expand, either because the head of the department wants a larger fiefdom or because people whine about some alleged injustice somewhere else.

I'm confident that within a dozen years we're going to have age, race, religion, and sex dropdown boxes on online resume sites to satisfy this "need".

Re:It only applies to FEDERAL JOBS (1)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662169)

Even aside from that, I take "Federal Contractors" to include "Defense Contractors", i.e. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc., etc. These are huge companies that together make up a large chunk of the IT hiring pool. So not even considering the rollout to all companies with > 50 employees later this year, it's still a lot of jobs that will be affected prior to that.

Re:It only applies to FEDERAL JOBS (1, Redundant)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661871)

This applies to federal contractors begining today. It kicks in for pretty much everyone in the US (>50 employees) later this year.

Re:It only applies to FEDERAL JOBS (3, Funny)

CFTM (513264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661884)

We should rename this place "The land of chicken little" because the sky is always falling here...

Lets all sue for discrimination. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661811)

This sounds like it was written specifically for lawyers to bring more Class Action lawsuits against companies and reap big rewards for themselves. Here is a noose, please put your neck in it.

How long after they require all this tracking till they specify how many of X applicants you must have to obtain a federal contract? I would figure only a few years.

The only reason to track diversity is to punish when it does not meet that requirement of the day.

um.. (5, Funny)

Ryz0r (849412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661821)

an applicant must "express interest" in the job

Surely you wouldnt work in a place you have no interest in!

Re:um.. (1)

fujiman (912957) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662093)

Obviously you have never worked for the Federal Government.

I wonder... (1, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661829)

This is going to be a huge hassle for HR departments and seems like it will make diversity harder, not easier to achieve. (The primary beneficiaries are probably the lawyers and extortionist organizations, now that companies have to generate more evidence to be used against themselves.)

I wonder, though, if this isn't going to be a good thing for job applicants. Qualified applicants, anyway.

Re:I wonder... (1)

bfizzle (836992) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662003)

Actually, this should take the place of many techniques used to force diversity in the work place for government jobs. Instead of actively looking for candidates that will increase diversity percentages, HR departments will standardize the application process. These techniques have been proving to provide better candidates for positions and most companies with good HR departments utilize these techniques already. If you have not figured this out yet you may have already been missing the boat.

This works by creating good job descriptions and qualifications and matching those with candidates who have a proven they meet those requirements. This puts a large portion of the hiring process on HR instead of the department doing the hiring. For those of you wanting Federal contractor jobs this is a good thing!

I think this is BS (4, Insightful)

trailerparkcassanova (469342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661844)

This is a big deal and the only reference is this story. I could find nothing else. The story doesn't answer the diversity subject. BS I say.

Isn't it hard enough already? (4, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661870)

It seems they are going to regulate this country to the point where it's impossible to find a job. When's the last time any of the people making all these stupid laws actually tried to get a job? In the olden days you could walk into a place with a help wanted sign and get a job that day and just work - maybe for just that day or maybe for twenty years. Now it's so expensive for companies to hire people and such a risk for them to give someone a try that they often don't fill vacancies for great periods of time and only then when they find an applicant that has exactly the needed skills and referenced. No more picking someone with some skills and the ability to learn and just training them. God no - they could turn out to be a moron or lazy and you can't fire them because it's such a nightmare to do so. The number of unemployed in this country is pretty huge and the time a lot of people can go unemployed can be many months and it all comes down to all the red-tape involved.

It's great to protect people from shitty employers but not a good idea to create so much red tape that you're keeping a significant number of your citizens from finding work. All this red tape is a good part of the reason temps and illegals are so popular as employees.

Re:Isn't it hard enough already? (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662128)

We are headed towards total socialism. Let government control this, let government control that -- bunch of bullshit if you ask me. I grew up and lived in the Soviet Union, and if there ever was a beaurocratic nightmare state , that was it. I came here to escape the corruption and avoid having to deal with miles of red tape, but it seems the situation gets worse and worse here too.

So they want the companies to hire people "in a diverse" kind of way. Are they going to have race, gender, sexual orientation quotas or what? I can see them saying : "We still need 5 more black-gay-women for this job." "Sorry straight-white-male, you might be qualified, well educated and the company would sure like to hire you but you are just not a black-gay-woman."

Will I have shave my legs, dress like a woman or act gay or claim that my grand grand grand father was black so therefore I am a minority, to get a job in the near future...?

Scare phrases (3, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661883)

There are a lot of scare phrases in that article which are typically used to drum up business for consultants. I would talk to your Legal Dept (for a bigger employer) or CPA (for a small employer) before trashing every resume in the Inbox.

sPh

Just what we need... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661892)

...another excuse for businesses to outsource. I can see the comments now: "There aren't any qualified applicants out there, so we're forced to seek the expertise elsewhere".

Hey, lawmakers, how about similar restrictions on outsource criteria? Perhaps something along the lines of less than 10% of the workforce can be under the age of 10, half the workforce must be female, etc.

"With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." - President Bush, Feb.1, 2006

Big deal (3, Insightful)

kpainter (901021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661907)

It is also illegal to hire an illegal alien in the US. How many businesses got fined for doing that last year nation wide? The answer is somewhere between 1 and 0. This will be ignored.

Re:Big deal (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661967)

If they are doing all this to stop illegal aliens they are wasting time and money. That group traditionally go for very low end jobs that can evade taxes under the table. Online jobs are typically more engineering and business related. Federal guideline? Does this mean it has to do with the Bush administration?

Re:Big deal (1)

kpainter (901021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662064)

The gov does not want to stop illegal aliens or fine anybody for hiring them. My point was that there are already laws on the books with stiff fines for employers engaged in hiring them - and they are routinely ignored.

I think that this law will be used to reject applicants (they don't want) for not meeting all the qualifications - thus breeding more discrimination, not less.

Re:Big deal (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662067)

Funny enough most the companies I've seen hire illegals give them $10/hr. That's without any taxes coming out of it. That's better money than a lot of people I know that have degrees are making. Really I have no problem with them hiring illegals as long as they are paying them this kind of fair wage and for temp positions it really makes sense for a company.

Re:Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662191)

Funny enough most the companies I've seen hire illegals give them $10/hr. That's without any taxes coming out of it.

And the municipal services these people use? Who pays for it? You and I.

In any remotely possible world, how is this 'fair'?

Rule vs Law (2, Interesting)

rascanban (732991) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661923)

I'm confused. In legal terms, what is the difference between a "rule" and a "law"? Is this a law or merely a guideline for selecting candidates? And does it only apply to government positions (through private or federal employees)? And, furthermore, can a company be legally liable for not following "rules" or guidelines? Perhaps this is meant to limit the number of companies or agencies that provide employees to the government?

Rules implement Laws (1)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662305)

Rules implement Laws.

Don't forget to look them in the eye (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661939)

So if your pal at Ostrich Corp. wants to refer you for a job, know what Ostrich's policy is...

Remember folks, Ostrich Corp's first policy is to get your head out of the sand and start winging it.

TFA? Useless and Misleading. (4, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661976)

My God folks, the article offers no clue whatsoever about where this supposed set of rules is coming from. No Legislative reference, no Government department - Nothing.

Then it spins into a collection of rather bizarre "tips" for job applicants, most of which don't really seem to have anything to do with the alleged changes in government hiring practices, or even reality.

Even for slashdot this is pretty weak.

Re:TFA? Useless and Misleading. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662174)

And notice how all the quotes come from Gerry Crispin, "founder and principal of CareerXRoads and a long-time Internet job hunting expert." No other sources are cited.

CareerXRoads is a consulting firm. To me, this looks like Crispin is making a big deal out of a small regulation change to drum up business.

Useless and Misleading is a good... (1)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662251)

...description for your friendly Dept of Labor.

Perfect, actually.

Real qualifications (1)

HooliganIntellectual (856868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662006)

You would think that putting "Always turn TPS reports in on time" on my resume would land me more interviews!

Programmers (1)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662021)

In the new system, federal regulators will be checking to see that companies are keeping diversity data on all applicants, according to a new, more uniform definition of "applicant."

How is this going to effect the computer programmer/contracting positions. We are currently hiring and most of our applicants are of Asian decent. Does this mean that we are not picking "randomly" enough or that we are racist against white developers? I wonder if we hire a lot of Indians it will balance out all the white management we have. This is such a grey area and I'm really not sure what they expect to accomplish.

Teach HR to write real Tech Job listings (3, Interesting)

computer_redneck (622060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662024)

Back in 2000 I was searching for a job. I saw a listing. With all the other criteria there was one that said "7 years Windows 95 experience" WTF. That would mean someone would have to have been using Win95 since 1993. Now I know there were betas running around back then and I had one of them at the time but other than me and a few other techies would have actually have had that experience?

Also having to have exact skills to the job listing would increase the ammount of people lieing on their resumes which means that employers no long could trust that the resume was valid.


Support our Troops
Impeach our President

This will actually make matters much worse.. (2, Informative)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662063)

In many cases, government jobs are already required to be advertised widely, and candidates must be considered on the basis of their qualifications. This means, that if you have your golfing buddy in mind for the job, all you have to do is make sure the qualifications listed match his (and only his) profile. Now, if applicants have to conform to the qualifications 100% this is a much, much easier process. Imagine a wanted ad like "senior business consultant with 13 years experience in federal auditing blahblah and a minimum of 3, but no more that 4 weeks of experience in an abbatoir", or whatever crappy holiday job the schmuck had.

Of course, if you do want to give a lot of people a shot, you just state "requirements: carbon based lifeform, literacy" and "the following are a plus: ......"

So, really, this helps the government hiring cheats.

What this will really do... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662068)

The effect here will probably be to drive companies to third party recruiters, who will do the direct interaction with the applicant.

Why? Because candidates are not going to reword their resume for every employer--that's tremendously expensive for the employee. Also, many qualified applicants probably won't have the skills to "search engine optimize" their resume to get noticed. And companies won't want to fall afoul of the law, so they're unlikely to relax rules and "read between the lines."

This will probably create a huge market opportunity for companies who will handle the minor changes from job to job--they will search the big job boards (like Monster), find jobs matching your profile, and send you a list. You tick off the ones you're interested in, and they will make the minor changes to your resume to make sure you line up properly.

Law of unintended consequences again (5, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662080)

Congress passes these ever more bigoted laws (in the name of diversity of course, gotta love NewSpeak) so they can feel good about having 'done something' about a problem that increasingly is made worse by more laws because it has been mostly solved. We long since passed the point where the negative impact of more laws were outweighed by the positive benefits. Thirty-forty years ago, yea, there were some serious problems still lingering in society. We talked a good "everybody is equal" but practice didn't match theory very well.

But these days we have, if anything, overshot equality and went to tribalism amok. These days it seems the only ones who quotes King's "I have a Dream" speech's line about judging everyone on their ideas instead of their skin is Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich because the entire 'Civil Rights' establishment has invested all their political capital on maintaining quotas and pretending to be victims while having all the trappings (limo, jets, mistresses, etc) of the wealthy. Listen up folks, when (in theory if not in practice) the left, the right and just about everyone in between are in agreement on an issue it really isn't much of an issue anymore. The only reason it is still an issue is because too many people have made an industry out of "Oprah Nation" style victimhood as career.

Actual Details from Ars Technica (5, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662129)

Hurrah - someone with research skills!

The actual rule:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/200502017 6.htm [dol.gov]
Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement Purposes

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060207-6127 .html [arstechnica.com]

Do you know what the OFCCP is? It is the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and that little taste of bureaucratic alphabet soup is a part of the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration. The OFCCP's job is to ensure "that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination." In essence, that makes the OFCCP one of the many departments that exist within the government to monitor activities and make sure things are done properly and fairly. A noble goal, to be sure, but the OFCCP has distinguished itself with a new rule going into effect this week regarding the tracking of those who apply for jobs on the Internet, and it may have repercussions for anyone using electronic means to search for a new career.

Simple solution.... (1)

JakiChan (141719) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662163)

At the end of your resume cut and paste the job requirements. Of course this breaks Dice and other on-line places to search, but if you apply then all you do is list everything they've put.

It's hard enough to find clued people now. Thanks for making it harder, asshats.

Thank God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662166)

From TFA: To comply with these new rules and get the most diversity, employers will have an incentive to keep the pool of applicants for each job relatively small and as random as possible.

Thank God we have the "Small Government" Republicans looking out for the American workers!

Increasing diversity by limiting the pool of applicants? I wonder who paid any number of *our* representatives to push this BS...

Points up that Networking is still King. (1)

zorkmid (115464) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662173)

I've been in IT since '79 and *every* job I've had has been an inside referral. The great part about it is that it bypasses all the keyword loving HR drones. The first time the HR hears about me is when I show up to fill out my 401K paper work.

Diverse -that- gooberment.

Rogers here in Canada already made it harder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662178)

No - not through pr0n, but by removing newsgroups from our subscription. It sucks - I had a cool tool to scan newsgroups - now I'm stuck using their "alternatives" such as yahoo groups or google.

Good luck!

You got what you asked for.... (2, Insightful)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662221)

...an overbearing, overweening, unresponsive , unaccountable government.

*You* elected 'em.

Think before voting, next time.

Try holding your fave politicians ACCOUNTABLE for once. Sure, career bureaucrats are responsible, but they are told what to do BY CONGRESS.

- A disgusted native-American male-lesbian libertarian activist

Online job hunting doesn't work anyway (2, Insightful)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14662273)

In spite of:

- 20 years professional experience.
- 7 years IT manager
- C, C++, C#, .NET, VB, SQL Development
- 10+ years project management

No interviews or contact whatsoever.

The only way to really get response is through personal and direct contacts with firm you are interested in.

Friend Computer! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14662298)

Good Morning Citizen!

Friend Computer has randomly chosen you! Yes, YOU CITIZEN! out of all the applicants for reactor-core cleaning duty!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?