Asking for a little advice. - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Asking for a little advice.

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Madison » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:33 pm

Tavish wrote:Being overqualified for a job is something that extremely common and very likely has nothing to do with some veiled anti-lawyer agenda. I've come across it quite often when looking for secondary work and my company has a very similar hiring practice in place. The base reason for it is that if a person is well overqualified for a position they generally are using the job as a stop-gap until they can find a job that is closer to their qualifications (which usually means meets their pay expectations). For some companies that isn't that big of a deal and it used to not be a big deal for our company especially if the training investment for new employees is fairly low. But when we picked up contracts that required drug screening and full background checks for all employees along with added training, it wasn't feasible to hire highly overqualified applicants with an expectation of them only being there a few months.

It absolutely does suck for people who are trying to find a job and to be told they are overqualified, but it just a common part of the job market. Companies will play the percentages and reduce their risk even if that means missing out on that random gem.


Perfect example of what I'm saying. ;-D Your company wouldn't pass on an employee like her because she knows too much about the position (overqualified), they would pass on her because she doesn't project into being a long time employee. But they give her the "overqualified" excuse, even though that isn't the true reason.

I'm not saying a company is wrong for not hiring someone they think will only be temporary and I'm not saying they don't do exactly that, you are definitely correct on both accounts. All I'm saying is the "overqualified" excuse is given, when it isn't the true reason someone didn't get the job.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Tavish » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:50 pm

jfg wrote:Too many employers hire based on how long they think they will be in a position instead of what a person can give the company right now. If it' a good fit, both parties won't want to look elsewhere.

The problem is that it usually doesn't work that way. Back before the expense of hiring people jumped (like I said before we have to pay out quite a lot in expense due to the set-up of some of our contracts), our company would hire just about anyone that met the qualifications for the position. The most basic example was we have a low level computer technician the just needs some basic computer skills and a very small amount of mechanical skills. It is basically a glorified inventory position where you hook up a computer, pull the specs, then report information about it into a database. The pay isn't great, but better than working at the local fast food joint and the work is fairly simple.

During the last 5 years of the time that we hired anyone who qualified, and in some cases we hired people that were vastly overqualified but were looking for work. In the cases of the vastly overqualified, there wasn't a single one of them that we had to let go because of their ability to do the work or their dedication to the job. And I don't remember a single one of them leaving because they disliked the work or the environment. I'm not exaggerating when I say in those 5 years we hired around 30 people who I would consider overqualified for the position and every single one of them left at some point within 6 months (usually much shorter) because of a higher paying job or a job more in their field of interest.

The turnover rate for people whose qualifications for the job better fit the requirements is vastly lower. They still come and go but the length of stay I would estimate to be at least double if not higher.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Tavish » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:23 pm

Madison wrote:Perfect example of what I'm saying. ;-D Your company wouldn't pass on an employee like her because she knows too much about the position (overqualified), they would pass on her because she doesn't project into being a long time employee. But they give her the "overqualified" excuse, even though that isn't the true reason.


You are taking the "overqualified" term too literally. That is pretty much an industry standard term that is used to categorized an applicant meaning exactly what I am talking about.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Madison » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:55 pm

Tavish wrote:
Madison wrote:Perfect example of what I'm saying. ;-D Your company wouldn't pass on an employee like her because she knows too much about the position (overqualified), they would pass on her because she doesn't project into being a long time employee. But they give her the "overqualified" excuse, even though that isn't the true reason.


You are taking the "overqualified" term too literally. That is pretty much an industry standard term that is used to categorized an applicant meaning exactly what I am talking about.


I take the term for what it means, like I do most words in the vast English language. Here's the big thing about it though, what good does it do for the prospective employee if they keep getting turned down with a false reason given? How can they address the real issue (or issues) going forward when trying to land a job? Now I know it isn't the responsibility of businesses out there to help people get hired, but lying to those prospective employees with an excuse for not hiring them that doesn't make sense, frankly makes no sense.

I mean, take jfg's wife. If the majority of her "overqualified" fake reasons are that they don't think she will be around very long, how can she fix it if she doesn't know that's the real thing costing her? By telling her the truth, she can then focus on one of two things in her future applications. Either go after a career, or make sure to make it clear she wants the job for the long haul. Not telling her the real reason she isn't getting hired does not help her or anyone. Something else, a lot of job seekers congregate together and discuss who's hiring, how it went, etc. I can't speak for jfg's wife, but if I tell someone I got the fake "overqualified" excuse at an interview, no one I know will ever consider applying for a job with that company because the people I congregate with don't appreciate a company treating someone like that. Shoot straight with people and you earn respect. Don't, and you earn the opposite.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Tavish » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:18 pm

Madison wrote:
Tavish wrote:You are taking the "overqualified" term too literally. That is pretty much an industry standard term that is used to categorized an applicant meaning exactly what I am talking about.


I take the term for what it means, like I do most words in the vast English language.

No you are taking for what you think it means. Like I said, it has a fairly standard meaning when it comes to employers and potential job applicants. While it can certainly be used as a way to hide other reasons for not hiring someone, I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion. A company deeming someone overqualified isn't a "fake excuse" in many cases. If a person is told they were considered overqualified for a job then they should know what is meant. If not, they could do a pretty simple search on the internet and figure it out.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Madison » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:54 pm

Tavish wrote:No you are taking for what you think it means.


Come on Tav, you are smarter than this statement.

o·ver·qual·i·fied
   [oh-ver-kwol-uh-fahyd]
adjective
having more education, training, or experience than is required for a job or position.


World English Dictionary
overqualified (ˌəʊvəˈkwɒlɪˌfaɪd)

—adj
having more managerial experience or academic qualifications than required for a particular job


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overqualified?s=t
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Madison » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:07 pm

Tavish wrote:No you are taking for what you think it means. Like I said, it has a fairly standard meaning when it comes to employers and potential job applicants. While it can certainly be used as a way to hide other reasons for not hiring someone, I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion. A company deeming someone overqualified isn't a "fake excuse" in many cases. If a person is told they were considered overqualified for a job then they should know what is meant. If not, they could do a pretty simple search on the internet and figure it out.


Might as well go ahead and address the rest of this. "Industry standard" is no different than "acceptable racism" or "acceptable discrimination". All are out there, and all are generally accepted, but that doesn't make any of them right or ok.

A lie would be more accurate, but I've been using "fake" as to try to take the sting off of it for employers that use it incorrectly. But unless someone is turned down for a job because they are far too intelligent or skilled to do the job ( ;-7 ), then any employer using the term "overqualified" for not hiring someone is simply lying about the real reason they aren't hiring that person.

And no, in the case of jfg's wife, we can't determine what the predominant reason is for her being turned down. We don't even know what jobs she's applied for. Could be any of the reasons mentioned or dozens of others, that isn't something we know or could guess at. But if the employers would be honest, then she'd know and most likely be in a new job right now after fixing whatever the predominant reason was.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Tavish » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:29 pm

Madison wrote:Might as well go ahead and address the rest of this. "Industry standard" is no different than "acceptable racism" or "acceptable discrimination". All are out there, and all are generally accepted, but that doesn't make any of them right or ok.

Truthfully I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about here. I'm not sure how industry standard is in any way related to either of those things or how the concept of industry standard terminology can even be thought of as a right or wrong concept.

A lie would be more accurate, but I've been using "fake" as to try to take the sting off of it for employers that use it incorrectly. But unless someone is turned down for a job because they are far too intelligent or skilled to do the job ( ;-7 ), then any employer using the term "overqualified" for not hiring someone is simply lying about the real reason they aren't hiring that person.


Again, you are trying to make overqualified mean what you want it to and not what it really does. "Overqualified" is a term exactly like "Underqualified". I'm assuming that if some had their application tossed due to being underqualified for the job you wouldn't consider it a lie or a fake reason for not hiring someone? There are some very legitimate concerns that come along with hiring people for a position they are overqualified for. If there are multiple companies that have rejected an application on that same basis then I think it is somewhat safe to assume they are not all using it to mask some hidden agenda.

But if the employers would be honest, then she'd know and most likely be in a new job right now after fixing whatever the predominant reason was.


There are tons of resources out there for resume writing or interviewing tactics that address how to help overcome the obstacles of getting a job you are overqualified for. I would think that would be a good place to start, but certainly not foolproof. In an economy with an unemployment rate over 8% nothing is foolproof since companies can be somewhat picky with the people they hire.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Madison » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:00 pm

Tavish wrote:Again, you are trying to make overqualified mean what you want it to and not what it really does.


I posted the definition above, black and white facts, so why did you ignore it and write this absurdity again? It's really cut and dry that your statement is wrong. Sorry.

Tavish wrote: "Overqualified" is a term exactly like "Underqualified". I'm assuming that if some had their application tossed due to being underqualified for the job you wouldn't consider it a lie or a fake reason for not hiring someone?


No, "underqualified" would be fine with me. Someone can be too stupid to do a job (or even be too stupid to learn a job), but one cannot be too intelligent or too skilled at a job.

Tavish wrote:There are some very legitimate concerns that come along with hiring people for a position they are overqualified for. If there are multiple companies that have rejected an application on that same basis then I think it is somewhat safe to assume they are not all using it to mask some hidden agenda.


Sure, I've not said there aren't concerns with hiring intelligent people. I'm saying the companies should be honest about why they aren't hiring someone. If they think the person will likely move on quickly, thus wasting money on training, advertising, and re-hiring someone else, they should just say it. Don't lie about it and hide behind a made up excuse of "overqualified". Makes the company look stupid since one cannot be too intelligent or too skilled at a job.

Tavish wrote:There are tons of resources out there for resume writing or interviewing tactics that address how to help overcome the obstacles of getting a job you are overqualified for. I would think that would be a good place to start, but certainly not foolproof. In an economy with an unemployment rate over 8% nothing is foolproof since companies can be somewhat picky with the people they hire.


Sure, good place to start, but that's also assuming the #1 obstacle is that companies don't think she will be around long, and that's nothing more than a guess at this point thanks to employers not being honest about the true reason(s) why they didn't hire her.

As to the unemployment rate, last I looked (maybe a month ago?), 28 states were under 8% unemployment. 7.2% here in Texas, but the recession never really hit us. Last state in, first state out. Anyway, not sure where jfg is though. Unless they are interested in moving, if so, I'd suggest a head-hunter. Most I've dealt with (and have dealt with my wife) have been good people that did good jobs.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Asking for a little advice.

Postby Tavish » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:36 am

Madison wrote:
Tavish wrote:Again, you are trying to make overqualified mean what you want it to and not what it really does.


I posted the definition above, black and white facts, so why did you ignore it and write this absurdity again? It's really cut and dry that your statement is wrong. Sorry.


Madison wrote:
Tavish wrote: "Overqualified" is a term exactly like "Underqualified". I'm assuming that if some had their application tossed due to being underqualified for the job you wouldn't consider it a lie or a fake reason for not hiring someone?


No, "underqualified" would be fine with me. Someone can be too stupid to do a job (or even be too stupid to learn a job), but one cannot be too intelligent or too skilled at a job.


I know you are hard headed at times, but I know you aren't completely obtuse. Do you really think that a word can not have a specific meaning within an environment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overqualification

I'm sorry but, you are making the term out to be something that it isn't. It has nothing at all to do with a company not hiring someone because they think they would do the job too well.

Being too smart for a job can cause an issue in some cases (boredom for the most part), but the most typical concerns for an employer hiring someone who is overqualified is the stepping stone concern or the pay expectancy. Job qualification, especially for very strong companies, are usually crafted in a very specific manner. They aren't just there to show the minimum amount of knowledge needed to handled a position. They are made not only for the applicant, but for the hiring department to determine the type of individual best suited to the position. Going too far over the qualifications can be just as much a hindrance as being too far beneath them. In some cases the employer is better off hiring an under-qualified applicant before an overqualified one.

In theory a company should always try and hire a person with the most qualification, in practice the nuclear physicist that you just hired on as a janitor isn't going to be scrubbing toilets a few years from now.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact