A Word About Ageism. (Pauses. Sips Tea.)

So I’m in the middle of a job interview two weeks ago when the interviewer says to me, “You have too much experience for this job. You’d be bored.” I knew then I had no chance of getting that job. That statement ranks among the top 5 of “Things You Never Want to Hear

During a Job Interview.” I was doomed.

Any employment expert — or long-time job hunter — knows the phrase “too much experience” is code for: “This person is too old for the job. I’m never going to hire him/her. Bring me a younger person.”

Yes, folks, ageism is alive and well in the workplace. Not only do companies target older workers for layoffs (I should know), they dismiss them outright for jobs for which they have every qualification simply because they are considered “too old.”

Like my recent job interview. Nowhere in the ad did it mention this was an entry-level position. I possessed the requisite skills and background for the job, not to mention knowledge of the company’s particular industry. Yet, a day later, I received the dreaded “We are going with another candidate” email. Yeah, a younger candidate, no doubt.

This wasn’t my first encounter with flagrant ageism. One particularly nasty guy I interviewed with looked at me and sneered, “At your age it would be hard to get a job.” Could he be any more transparent? His implication was clear: Since no one else will hire you, I may — for a paltry salary — and I can treat you as badly I want because no one else will give you a job. I’d rather be homeless, living in my own pee, than work for a horrible boss like that.

I knew when I started my job search 16 months ago my advanced age would hinder my ability to find employment. Add to that my two layoffs in four years, and I knew it would be a tough road. Yet, I was able to get job interviews, and I thought, foolishly I now know, that the skills I picked up at my last job would erase any doubts about my capability to master new technology. I was wrong, so wrong.

I’m not surprised that HR managers practice ageism when hiring. (Who’s going to stop them?) What does surprise me is how blatant they are about it, how little attempt they make to hide the fact they are discriminating against me because of my age, how they believe I'm so stupid I don't perceive their ageism. 

I’m also surprised when people of my generation discriminate against me because of my age. That woman who dismissed me for being “too experienced” (is that a bad thing?) was well past her 40th birthday. How would she feel if she was laid off and had to look for a job, only to be told she was “too experienced”?

Perhaps for that particular position I was too experienced. If that were the case, then the company should have specified it was an entry-level position or stated the salary range. Then, I wouldn’t have applied, gone in for the interview, and been crudely dismissed because of my age.

Of course, companies aim to pay only the lowest of salaries, so an experienced worker is automatically deemed to command too high a salary. Let’s hire young and cheap is the mantra of corporate America. My salary requirements run in line with the industry’s standards for someone with my experience, and I’m always willing to negotiate. Sadly, any attempt to negotiate salary has fallen on deaf ears.

There is more than mere ageism going on here. It’s the belief by so many employers that only the young know how to use technology. I believe that is a false assumption.

At my last job, I learned new tech systems and was given the toughest job in the department. Want to know what my beat was? Annuities. Yeah, good luck with that. It was the military equivalent of latrine duty. Hey, I was the newest employee, so I expected the shittiest assignment.

Nevertheless, I succeeded. I tripled page views on my channel and was the fourth most-read editor out of a staff of a dozen on the website. I was the lady who created a slideshow titled “12 Cheesy Sales Lines You Should Avoid.” It was a thing of beauty, and I had fun putting it together. A year after it was posted, it was still in the top 10 for page views. So, I proved I could learn new industries and technology. Great, right?

Unfortunately, the misogynist fraud that headed the department couldn’t deal with any older professional women and laid off three of us. He hated it when any female underling questioned him, and treated a lady recovering from cancer treatment very badly. He barely concealed his disdain for any of us. When the chance came to get rid of us, he did. Again, ageism reared its ugly head.

In light of my recent experience, I don’t understand why I’m summarily rejected for jobs simply on the assumption I’m too old to learn new tech skills. And why are young people automatically assumed to be digital wizards? And it’s not just me who feels that way.

I recently spoke to the head of a tech company for a freelance article. I asked what skills he looked for in new hires. The exasperation in his voice vibrated through the phone line. (Yes, it was a landline. It’s better for recording interviews. In my defense, I gave up my flip phone a long time ago.)

The gist of his answer was that while young people are users of technology, they remain clueless when it comes to developing a technology that can successfully solve a business problem. Just because Millennials are consumers of technology does not in any way mean they are innovators of technology. Heck, they may not even know how to code. If Millennials are such hotshot techies then why are they are thousands of coding bootcamps across the country? Yet, companies persist in the belief that only the young know technology and dismiss thousands of older workers based on a wrong-headed notion.

I fight a losing battle against that stigma every time I submit a job application. Age discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove, so companies have no fear of dismissing older workers and being hit with a lawsuit. HR managers can spin the rejection of an older candidate by simply saying they weren’t right for the job or had “too much experience.”

That is so wrong, for so many reasons. Hiring someone based solely on their age is as stupid as rejecting a person because of their age. It’s ridiculous.

Why not look at the totality of a job applicant. Does the person have the skills and background for the job? In an interview, does the person seem personable and intelligent? Does that person have the capability and desire to learn new skills? Those are characteristics a person can possess at any age.

Are You a ‘Unicorn’?

Here’s another in a series of posts about jobs and job situations you should avoid like a Game of Thrones wedding party. Previously, I’ve detailed how to spot a jerk; why it’s a bad idea to be a “savior”; and the danger of working for a start-up.

This week, I’m discussing the “unicorn” job ad. Yes, it’s a real thing, unlike the mythical

creature of yore. What is a unicorn in the corporate world? Basically, it’s an employee that has the “soft” skills required for a particular position in addition to the prowess to do the technological tasks of the job. Think of a marketing executive who understands human behavior as well as coding and the ability to mine Big Data for consumer patterns.

In the media world, it’s a reporter who can report news, write it up in a coherent manner, edit other people’s work, and then go out and shoot and edit videos. Oh, and by the way, it doesn’t hurt if that reporter is a kick-ass graphic artist, too.

Here’s a perfect example of a unicorn:

“…… is seeking reporter/editor with a strong interest in both written and visual journalism ... The reporter/editor will work to enhance our infographics, and to develop survey-driven articles, columns and webcasts.”

Got that? In addition to reporting and writing, this unicorn must produce webcasts, research data, and create infographics. Anything else I can do for you, sir? Like wipe your butt and get you lunch?

Now, as someone who has worked in the field, I can say with some assurance that this person doesn’t exist, or doesn’t at this point in time.

Now, lest you accuse me of being a luddite, at my previous jobs, I actually did create infographics and produced videos. That was on top of my interviewing and writing long-form articles and daily news items. So, I have a good idea of what it takes to accomplish those tasks. Each is time-consuming. That is, if you want to do it properly.

In theory, I understand the need for a unicorn. Nearly every job requires some technical expertise. If you want to stay employed, you learn the programs, as I did.

In a person’s personal life, well, that’s a different story. People use technology as it fits into their individual lifestyle. They can go as high tech or low tech as they want. That’s their choice and no one should judge them. For a job, however, you master the technical skills required — or you won’t be employed very long.

Unfortunately, the problem with these imaginary unicorn employees is that our higher educational system has not quite caught up with the needs of employers. Employers want all these tech skills, but colleges are now scrambling to provide the courses. It’s why coding bootcamps are a big business today. They fill a gap higher educational institutions don’t currently fulfill. Colleges and universities will eventually catch up, but it will take time.

In the meantime, employers will demand that workers be experts in everything from human behavior and investigative reporting to web coding and Big Data mining. Fun times!

I also believe there is another factor behind this desire for a unicorn. Companies want their workers to do more than one job, because, hey, it’s cheaper. Why pay an IT person and a reporter when you can get one to do both for one measly salary. The fact that asking workers to do so many tasks means they are probably not going to do anything very well never enters into the employer’s mind. Heck, if one person can’t do the job, we’ll just find another unicorn. Employers demand excellence in all facets of a job. But is that realistic when you want somebody with both soft and technical skills? Is it fair to expect somebody to break news, produce webcasts and videos, all on the same day?

Hey, I’m just asking. Yes, companies have the right to define the skill sets required for particular jobs. I wonder, though, if demanding too many skills from one person is wise. Can that worker accomplish all those tasks to a high standard? Maybe, maybe not. A company may get labor on the cheap, but at what cost to overall quality — and the worker’s health?

Should you apply for a unicorn job ad? Only if you have the required technical and soft skills, or know you can learn them quickly. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time, much like chasing after the unicorn of fairy tales.

Testing 1 2 3…Testing 1 2 3

Along with the teeth-gnashing tedium of applying for jobs online comes the even more

annoying and tedious practice of taking tests as part of the application process. Before many a company even lets you in the door for a face-to-face interview you have to take a test, sometimes multiple tests. And you thought the SATs were well behind you. Think again, job-hunting suckers.

In some cases, it’s reached what I think are absurd proportions. For instance, a while back, I received an email from a company to which I had applied for a job. In it, I was told I had to pass three distinct steps even before I would be deemed worthy enough for an in-person interview. Those steps were: a preliminary test; a video chat (it wasn’t specified how that would be accomplished); a phone interview; and then if I passed muster through the first three grueling steps, I would be asked to come in for a face-to-face interview. Like I was meeting the Pope.

So what was this job, you may wonder? A NSA operative? A barista at Starbucks? A CEO of a multi-national corporation? Operator at a nuclear plant? Greeter at Wal-Mart?

Nothing that important. The company merely wanted someone who would scan the Internets for cute pet videos, post them, and write a witty summary of the video. For that a person had to go through four stages of testing and interviews!? A 12-year-old with superior language skills could do that job.

I completed the first step (which took an afternoon), but soon after received the inevitable “we are going with other candidates” email. Ug! What a waste of my time.

That’s not to say I disagree with the concept of testing as part of the employment application process. You wouldn’t hire a chef without seeing if he or she could make a basic omelet. I do question, however, how valid these tests are in assessing whether a person has the right technical and personal skills for a particular job. Is it fair to ask applicants to steer through a sometimes grueling, onerous and time-consuming testing sequence that may or may not give a true picture of a job seeker’s qualifications? So many factors go into what makes a good employee.

Full-disclosure: I have yet to actually pass a “test” I’ve taken as part of an application process. Therefore, my perceptions are likely skewed against these silly tests. I did horribly on SATs (but those were the days before SAT prep courses) as well.

Or have I failed the tests? Applicants are rarely told how they did on the tests, whether they finished just out of the top five or came in last. So I don’t know if other factors worked against me, such as not having the proper experience a company was looking for to fill a particular job. Was I rejected because I’ve been laid off? Too old?

How much weight do companies give to those tests? Say, for instance, the person who scored the best on the tests turns out to be an arrogant jerk in the interview. Yet the person who came in second or third has a much nicer temperament and would be a better team player. Who would you rather hire? I’d hire the person with the better personality, although admittedly the logic of HR decisions escapes me. There are probably a lot of companies that would hire the jerk just based on the test scores alone.

Yet I believe there is something more ominous going on with all these ridiculous tests that the majority of people would fail anyway. It’s simply another way HR departments can weed through numerous candidates without really having to do an in-depth evaluation of each individual applicant. It’s similar to what many companies do when they summarily reject any job applicant that has been laid off. It makes the hiring process easier for them.

I've also learned never to apply to big-name companies that only accept Ivy League graduates. Why bother? It's just another way for them to winnow down the hiring process. As if that Ivy League degree makes them any more qualified than anybody else. It doesn't. It just means that they came from families wealthy enough to give them every advantage so they could get into those top schools. 

Many bogus job coaches tell job seekers to emphasize the skills and experience they bring to a job so they can show a potential employer how they can help the company prosper. Do that and you’ll get the job! HA! Nothing could be further from the truth. Companies couldn’t care less about you and your goody-two-shoes skills sets. From what I’ve gleaned during my job searches during two protracted periods of unemployment is that companies are looking for reasons NOT to hire you, pure and simple. Been laid off? Deep six that loser. Failed the test? Next!

While it’s certainly understandable why a company needs to establish a procedure to weed through numerous applicants, I sometimes wonder if the process is unfair to job seekers and whether it truly yields the best potential employee. Some applicants may be adept at cracking the code of a particular test, yet not have the skills that would make them a good, long-term employee. Tests can measure knowledge, but can they uncover a person’s ingenuity and ability work under pressure?

Companies whine about how they want to make sure they hire the right candidate. Filling and refilling positions is too expensive, so they want to make the right decision only once.

Yes, companies take a risk when they hire any employee. Will that person work out? But so does the new employee.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told in job interviews how wonderful a company is and how supportive my colleagues will be. Yet I don’t know if that’s true until I actually start working there. I may be surrounded by genuinely nice, helpful people, or I could end up with a rageaholic boss and backstabbing wasps for co-workers. (I’ve had more of the latter than the former.)

My former workplace is a perfect example. I was hired for one job and then six months later, my job duties were changed completely…without any advance notice or training. In classic management by mismanagement, I was given the worst job no one else wanted because I was the least senior person on staff. It was horribly unfair. But companies don’t care about being fair to their employees.

Through sheer hard work (and a lot of stress), I managed to do a good job, surprising myself and my nasty bosses, who were probably secretly hoping I would fail. Because if I failed, they could blame their poor management decision on me, rather then themselves. For all my perseverance I was laid off anyway.

Isn’t that the biggest risk any new employee takes—the risk that their new employer will dump them when budget cuts must be made? Last hired…first fired?

Nevertheless, when given the chance I will take any test given to me and try to do my best even though the odds are stacked against me. Sometime, though, I would just like to say to a company:

Enough with the tests already! Hire me!

Rejection Fatigue

AAAARRRRGGGHHH! I got one this morning.

OH NO! Another one came in the afternoon! Two in one day!

Twice, less than 12 hours apart, I had to endure what every job seeker dreads: the rejection email, just another paper cut to my self-confidence.

Sometimes you get rejection emails from a company for which you didn’t actually interview with in person. These robo-rejection emails are generated by the digital HR program that spits out qualified résumés the way you spit out watermelon seeds.

Sometimes you get rejection emails from a company you interviewed with in person. In my experience, however, that’s a pretty rare occurrence. Most of the time companies don’t even extend you the courtesy of informing you were, well, rejected.

I think that’s a bit rude, don’t you? I mean, if I’ve taken the time to come to your office (which sometimes has meant an hour commute or more) and have even taken a test, I believe I deserve to know if I were chosen or not. But what do I know? My feelings apparently don’t matter to HR. I’m just an overage, laid-off job seeker who doesn’t deserve basic human courtesy.

Though to be honest, if you haven’t heard back from an employer within say, two weeks, you can assume you were rejected. No email needed.

And to be fair, sometimes I get emails asking me to come in for an interview. Yet so far, that has only led to what seems to be the inevitable rejection email or nothing at all...sounds of crickets chirping...

The wording of the rejection emails is typically the same: Thank you for applying…after careful consideration we’ve decided to go with other candidates…good luck in your future endeavors. Blah…Blah…Blah….

The last part always irks me. These companies care nary a rat’s patootie for me or any other applicant. They know they’ve probably just screwed scores of applicants out of a job all are qualified to do. So why go through the pretense of wishing us luck? It’s right up there with the lie that they keep our résumés on file. Yeah, I’ll believe that the day the New York Mets trade for Giancarlo Stanton.

Someday, I'd like to ask a HR person why they don't respond to applicants, even if the applicant came in for an interview. Too many applicants? Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings? Can't be bothered? Knowing HR people, it's unlikely I'd get an honest answer. These are people who routinely lie to workers and are mere tools of upper management.

Yet I’m of two minds about rejection emails. Sometimes I think it’s better not to know if you were rejected. Or why. If I knew why I was rejected, I’m not sure my rapidly dwindling self-confidence could withstand it.

Because each time I read one of those rejection emails, doubt and negativity seeps into my psyche: I’m not good enough. Everybody is better than me. They picked someone who went to a better school. I’m incompetent. I’m stupid. I’ll never be hired for a job again. I know I shouldn’t feel that way, that I should fight those damaging feelings. But it’s getting harder and harder with every rejection email.

Honestly, I’m tired, soul weary of applying for jobs, going on interviews, taking tests…and ultimately getting rejected. I have rejection fatigue. Not sure I can bear...one...more...rejection...email. It's understood that rejection is part of any job hunt, but at some point, there has to be some positive reinforcement, like an actual job offer.

When I first conceived this blog post, I thought about equating my job hunting/rejection experience with my days in junior high and high school when I was truly one of the most unpopular, sickly kids in school. (Yeah, I know. Navel gazing at its most self-indulgent, right? Remember, I have a lot of time on my hands.) Then I thought better of it. Nobody wants to read (much more) about how my classmates cruelly mocked, excluded, and ignored me. How my pathetic attempts to be popular only engendered more scorn from my peers. It was horrible.

Suffice to say that nothing beams me back to those desolate days in the seventh grade lunchroom when I was the sad-eyed, lonely little girl no one apparently wanted to befriend than getting a job rejection email.

There Are No Second Chances in Job Hunting

Searching for a job after a layoff can be frustrating, demeaning, depressing and downright frightening. It can also be outright wacky.

This bizarreness was in full bloom when I received a call from a recruiter this week. He left a message on my phone saying he had seen my resume on Monster (yeah, I know, too desperate, right?) and thought I would be a good fit for a job for which he was recruiting candidates.

Of course, I returned his call and left a message for him to call me back. What did I have to lose? However, that same day, while scanning a job board, I noticed a job ad placed by that same recruiter. I looked at the job description. Hmmm…it looked very similar to a job I had applied for back in April through another recruiter. It was the same job I had interviewed for but then was told the company was going with two other stronger candidates.

The recruiter called me back. He started to explain the job to me and I quickly interrupted. “Is this_______________?” I asked. Yes, he answered.

I then told him of my experience back in April. How I had gone through another recruiter; was told the hiring manager was “excited” about my background; and even met with my prospective boss for an interview. It ended when I was told I wasn’t even a finalist for the job. Hey, companies have the right to select their employees.

I admit, I was upset for about a week, but got over it. So why is the company still looking to fill the position?

According to the second recruiter, he actually presented the two finalists. One of them was offered the job, but declined it when he took a higher paying offer. Hey, that’s his right. (I love it when companies get all hissy when a candidate rejects their offer or employees leave the fold. How often do companies hurl employees out of work en masse? Workers have rights, too, but companies want complete control over their employees.)

The company then declined to offer the job to the second finalist, which left the recruiter scratching his head.

Since I have nothing to lose at this point, I told the recruiter to put my name in the ring, though it’s extremely unlikely I would be considered as a candidate a second time. It's a Hail Mary Pass. Yet I figured, at the very least, I might find out why I was rejected for the job. The recruiter was sympathetic and told me not to doubt myself. Even he was mystified as to why the company spurned the second finalist.

I haven’t heard back from the second recruiter; doubtful I will. It’s time, as the song says to let it go, and move on.

From what the recruiter told me, the candidate the company decided to offer the job to did have more “analogous” experience, but it wasn’t that much greater than mine. If there were an advantage, it was razor thin.

After all, I was recruited the first time and went in for an interview. So I obviously had the background they sought for this job. The second recruiter wouldn’t have called me about the job unless he thought I was a suitable candidate. Remember, he gets paid when he successfully places a candidate. Frankly, I’m sick of being jerked around by this company. Told one minute I’m an attractive candidate, and then tossed aside with no explanation the next.

This happens more often than you’d think. A company offers a job to a candidate, who declines. Recently, I noticed an ad for a job I had applied for back in February. I even went in for a prized second interview, only to get the dreaded “we’ve decided to go with another candidate” email. Now they are looking to fill the same position once again. I can only surmise the candidate they originally offered the job to took a higher paying offer. That doesn’t surprise me; this particular company is notorious for only hiring recent college grads who think being paid $25,000 a year and living with five roommates is awesome. Oh, they would literally die…if Mom and Dad weren’t footing half their bills.

As I said in the beginning, hiring decisions can be wacky. Why was the company so hot to hire someone who was obviously using them to leverage a better payday while ignoring other just-as-qualified candidates who wanted to work for them? I guess it’s human nature, even in HR, to always want what we can’t have. Apparently, the blithering idiots who run this company only want to hire people who don't want to work for them.

I’m also left to wonder if my laid-off status had anything to do with the company discounting my candidacy. At the depth of the employment recession of 2010, numerous articles were written detailing how companies were rejecting laid-off workers outright even if they had the right qualifications. Is this despicable policy still in vogue?

Which is really hurtful, not only to the prospective employee but also to the company. Somebody who has been laid off is unlikely to use one job offer as maneuver to get another, better paying position. Indeed, we’re likely to take a cut in pay from our previous job. (I did.) I can only speak for myself, but I would take the first job offered to me at this point. Plus, laid-off workers can start work immediately. So there are advantages to hiring the long-term unemployed; not that companies think that way.

But should you reapply to a company that rejected you?

Perhaps it’s my rejection fatigue talking, but I wouldn’t reapply to a company that spurned me. It makes no sense. Whatever the reasons that propelled them to reject you in the first place — too high salary demands, too old, not the right qualifications, poor interview — are not going to magically revert in mere weeks and make the HR person change his or her mind.

There are no second chances in job hunting.