Why Not Update Your Resume

How long have you been keeping your professional resume in your cabinet? What does it feel whenever you see and and whenever you feel like you really need to find a job? Can you still remember the last time you had an achievement? Were you able to put it down on that paper? Finding a job can be an emergency, we can never tell when we will a job. We are just like our professional resumes. Those papers needs to have some fresh moment every now and then. Tania Khadder listed some signs that your professional resume is getting older. Why not look at it to check? Yes. They need some update. Why don't you try to take a look?

1. YOU'VE FORCED IT TO FIT ONTO ONE PAGE . "Your resume should be concise. Recruiters are busy people -- they don’t have time or the patience for long-winded career chronologies. But if your experience warrants two pages, by all means, don’t limit yourself to one."
2. YOU LIST AN OBJECTIVE . "At this point in the selection process, hiring managers are far more interested in what you can do for them than in what they can do for you."
3. YOU DON'T BRAND YOURSELF . "With the rise of social networking, everyone has become their own brand and you shouldn’t be afraid to show companies what you represent. Don’t just promote your accomplishments, but promote who you are."
4. YOU'VE LIST THE JOB YOU'VE HAD IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER . "Don’t list jobs that are irrelevant to the one you’re applying for just to fill up space. Instead, expand on the jobs that are relevant. Focus on measurable achievements in each role as opposed to a play-by-play of your daily responsibilities."

Managers and HR people do not fully read CVs

They probably won’t read it at all if you hand write it. If you do not have a computer, then go to your local library. Most will let you use their computers for a limited time and then print off copies of whatever you wish for a small fee. Then you must be aware that the HR people and/or manager has to read a great many applications and resumes. They will not read every word of your resume, so you must make every work count. If they read every other paragraph, then you need to make sure that every paragraph pops and dazzles the manager. Most managers will only read the first few lines and then maybe skim a little of the rest before tossing your CV aside. This means you must have a strong opener, and the first few paragraphs should be short and to the point.

So let’s say you are an experienced grocery supervisor, and are applying for the same position in a new company. Your big opening line could be and following text could be.

I want this job because I have done it for the last 5 years and become very good at it.

• ŸI have worked as a supervisor for Grumbles Groceries for 5 years
• My attendance record is the highest in store
• I have won worker of the month on 29 occasions

The sooner you send in your CV the better. There are jobs advertised that have not closed their application period yet, but have been running for two or three weeks. In these cases, the managers have already started interviewing and have probably already found someone they like. Any further interviews will just be a formality. You should still apply, even if the advert has been running a long time, because there is a chance that they have interviewed a bunch of people who were not good enough, but it is unlikely. Even if they have picked the person they want and are only doing further interviews as a formality, it is a good way to practice your interview techniques. There are lots of people who are hired, simply because they interview well.

Previewing Employment Cases on Supreme Court Docket

The Supreme Court opened its term with an employment case. On October 3, it heard argument about whether a worker at a meat processing plant is entitled to be paid for the time she spends each day putting on and removing 10 pounds of protective equipment.

“The regulations in this area are somewhat confusing,” says Rafael Gely, professor of law at the University of Cincinnati [and a former blogger]. “It is also the case that employers try to push the limit wherever possible. A few seconds becomes a couple of minutes and that window keeps expanding a little bit at a time.”

Labor costs for employers could rise substantially if they are forced to pay each time the window opens. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of employees also would “add fuel to the fire” of an emerging area of litigation, says Edwin Keller Jr., a lawyer at Kamer Zucker & Abbott in Las Vegas.

“Wage and hour class-action lawsuits have become a cottage industry across the United States,” he says.

We are indeed condemned to repeat history.

After a mess of litigation over compensation for getting dressed, showering, walking to and from worksites, etc. Congress long ago (in the late 1940s) passed the Portal-to-Portal Act, which contains this provision:

[N]o employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the [FLSA] . . . on account of the failure of such employer to pay . . . for . . .

(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and

(2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities.

Now, I’m not always a strict constructionist, but if I were on the Supreme Court I would grant cert. on this case for one reason only: to join the predictable Scalia-Thomas vote in saying that this statute means what it says. “Putting on and removing 10 pounds of protective equipment” can only be viewed as “preliminary to or postliminary to [the] principal activity or activities,” and thus non-compensable.

Other employment law cases currently on the Supreme Court docket include a whistle-blower case, one involving federal employee collective bargaining, and one that could determine whether judges or juries should decide who is an employee in discrimination suits. In the latter case:

Plaintiff . . . alleges that a supervisor . . . sexually harassed her. In 2001, she quit and filed an employment discrimination civil rights suit . . . Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a business must employ at least 15 workers for 20 or more weeks to be subject to a suit. Two weeks after the jury handed down its decision in [plaintiff’s] favor, [the employer] moved to have the case dismissed. It argued that a district court did not have jurisdiction because [the employer] did not qualify as a 15-worker employer–unless delivery drivers and the restaurant owners and their wives were counted. Employers want the Supreme Court to rule that defining who is an employee is a matter of law to be determined by a judge rather than a fact left up to a jury. “A judge is better equipped to apply these kinds of statutes,” Keller says.

“Justices Face Full Workplace Docket”

Actually, this somewhat misstates the issue. See the Petitioner’s brief [.pdf.] in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., stating the Question Presented as:

Section 701(b) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act limits the Title VII prohibition against employment discrimination to employers with fifteen or more employees. Does this provision limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of a Title VII claim?

The significance of the issue is that if the requirement is jurisdictional, a finding at any time, even after trial, that the minimum number of employees does not exist deprives the court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal.

If this issue is not jurisdictional, it may be too late to raise it after a certain point in a case. But that doesn’t mean it necessarily is a question for a jury rather than a judge. I would view it as a mixed question of fact and law. There is no jury question if the material facts are undisputed and it is just a matter of interpreting them under the law applicable to determining what constitutes an employment relationship.

Incidence of Employment Discrimination: Is Perception Reality?

Washington Post reports: “Fifteen percent of all workers say they have been discriminated against in their workplace during the past year, according to a new Gallup Organization poll.”

Washington Post: “The Bias Breakdown”

See also: “Workplace bias still prevalent, Gallup survey finds,” (SHRM).

Some key findings of the Gallup poll:

• While the overall discrimination rate is 15%, it varies considerably by race and gender. Women are more than twice as likely to report that they have been discriminated against in the past year (22%) as are men (9%).
• Asians and blacks are most likely to report experiences of discrimination (31% and 26%, respectively), while 18% of Hispanics and 12% of whites also report such incidents.
• The difference in discrimination among men and women is primarily among whites, with only 3% of white men, compared with 22% of white women, reporting such experiences.
• Black men and women report similar rates — 26% and 27%, respectively. 20% of Hispanic men and 15% of Hispanic women report incidents of discrimination.
• The two types of discrimination most frequently cited are gender (26%) and race/ethnicity (23%). In addition, 17% mentioned age discrimination, 9% cited disability, 4% sexual orientation, and 4% religion.

Oliver Willis blogs about this study: “According To The Right, This Is Imaginary”

Let’s start with this, Oliver: wouldn’t we all be better off without throwing around tired labels like “the right” — and “the left”? 

Now, I’m not a member of “the right.” And I don’t think perceptions of discrimination are all imaginary. 

No doubt some of the people who perceive discrimination actually were discriminated against. Oliver is right: discrimination has not been eliminated — perhaps never will be entirely. 

But I’ve been on the defense side of way too many meritless workplace discrimination cases to believe that most people who perceive employment discrimination are accurately perceiving reality. 

It’s interesting that whereas most age, sex, or race cases I’ve seen in my practice have involved termination, Gallop says: “The work areas that are most susceptible to discrimination are promotion and pay, cited by 33% and 29%, respectively, of people reporting incidents. Thirteen percent of such workers also cite discrimination in getting a job, and 11% mention the way they were treated at work.”

Even more interesting: the biggest employment discrimination law cases to hit the media this year have been the discrimination class actions focusing on — you guessed it — hiring, promotion, and pay. Coincidence — or have the perceptions found by Gallop been influenced by the media? You be the judge.

Sorry for ranting; it just irks me to hear a poll on perceptions of discrimination in employment reported as factual evidence of the actual incidence of such discrimination, using terms like “the overall discrimination rate is 15%.”

But I also don’t want to totally belittle perceptions. They have a reality of their own. They have negative HR consequences, such as poor morale, turnover, discrimination charges, and legal expenses. For this reason, the following findings of the study are also very interesting.

• Among employees rating their company’s diversity efforts in the upper third of all companies rated, 61% say they are extremely satisfied with their company. But among those rating their company’s diversity efforts in the middle or lower third, only 34% and 21%, respectively, are extremely satisfied with their company.
• Similarly, employees in companies ranked highly on diversity are much more likely to stay with their companies, and to recommend them to others, than employees who give lower ratings on diversity.
• This association is especially high when employees rate the commitment of their company head. Among employees who strongly agree their company head is committed to diversity, 65% would recommend their company to others. But among employees not as convinced their company head is committed to diversity, just 29% would recommend their company.

Seriously?

Couple things here for Friday diversion that are either good satire or just plain stupid.

First, this from London via India:

Next time you think of putting away your office files high-up on a shelf behind your desk, think again, as it may seriously curtail your shelf life in the office , as well as nail you for sexual harassment.

A law firm in Scotland has issued warnings to employers not to store important files and documents on high shelves, as if found guilty they could be charged of sexual harassment since only tall people are able to reach them, and in general, men are taller than women.

“Putting files on high shelves tantamounts to sexual harassment!” (India News)

Yeah, right. The better warning is not to stare at (or grope) their legs or bottoms as they stretch to reach the top shelf! Even better: keep a stepstool around.


Second silly item:

Heard on the radio on my way home last night on Marketplace, was this contrarian management advice: “Don’t despair. Or then again, do.”

Listen to the radio story (mediaplayer).

It’s conventional wisdom that happy workers are productive workers, and productive workers are profitable workers. Lawrence Kersten is a management consultant who says conventional wisdom is very wrong.

Skipping Work to Watch the Playoffs

I just returned from Busch Stadium (probably my last game there before they tear it down to make way for the new one growing up next door). Very satisfying first playoff game — Cardinals victory over Padres, highlighted by Reggie Sanders Grand Slam way into the left field stands.

Back home, trying to catch up on a little reading and blogging, I found a very troubling story telling me I was part of a major economic problem.

This article talked about all the lost productivity (about $225 million) caused by employees skipping work to attend — or even just watch or listen to — the playoffs:

Who is an Applicant?

We just got a tip by email from David Manaster of the Electronic Recruiting Exchange about the new regulation defining an applicant.

See the definition and some questions and comments about it.

David asked for our thoughts.
Michael is following this issue more closely than me, but may not have time to respond, so here’s my best shot.

The issue has become problematic because of recordkeeping requirements for government contractors relating to applicant flow. The issue may also be important for disparate impact hiring cases, in which statistical “applicant flow” analysis requires a known pool of applicants so that the impact of the selection process on protected groups within the applicant pool can be determined.

There always was an ambiguity about unsolicited resumes. Electronic jobsearching has aggravated this by allowing applicants to flood employers with resumes and/or electronic applications. The regulation establishes that only those who are considered for a particular position and whose resume or application indicates they meet its basic qualifications are deemed applicants.

So my interpretation would be that persons submitting unsolicited electronic resumes or applications not directed at or reviewed in connection a specific opening would not be applicants. Nor would those whose submission does not disclose they meet a basic qualification such as a degree or industry experience.