In going through articles, job-seeker profiles, and statistical reports on the nature and shape of unemployment in the current job market, I have noticed one thing many of the long-term unemployed and underemployed have in common: They are, like me, older and more experienced. In addition to the unemployed "99ers," there are also people like me and one of my Harvard classmates, who recently described herself in a note to several friends as "self-underemployed" for two years now.
All of us share the same goal as the millions of others looking for work: We want something steady that will make good use of our talents and skills and (in the best of all possible worlds) pays us commensurate with the value we have acquired through years of experience.
Trouble is, many employers would rather not do that last thing if they can avoid having to do so, even if (a) doing so is more cost-effective in the long run and (b) many of those self-same, experienced, long-term unemployed older workers are now willing to do what they've been doing for years for less than they had been doing it before.
Unfortunately, the roboscreeners who take the first pass at online job applications have no idea about any of this. All they see is the date of birth the applicant entered on the form.
Smart employers who wish to avoid age discrimination complaints and lawsuits refrain from asking this question, but, as a recent Huffington Post article notes, many large companies are asking it anyway, for reasons that make little sense, as they can always ask for the birthdate when they are ready to conduct a background check for their new hire.
The companies mentioned in the HuffPost article are all retailers, but I will wager that they are not the only businesses doing this. If large retailers are asking for birthdates, surely there are companies asking their candidates for managerial, supervisory, and executive positions in business for the same information.
What's an experienced older worker to do to get noticed, given this roadblock in their path to the hiring manager? It seems there are two answers: 1. Dodge the question. 2. Lie.
1. This is certainly the more ethical choice. It should be possible to leave the date of birth field blank, or just enter all zeroes if it is a required response. But what if that too isn't possible?
Ruth Lyons, a 59-year-old florist quoted in the HuffPost story, chose strategic lying. After failing repeatedly to get an interview with a local retailer, she decided to change her birthdate on her application to make it appear that she was 18 years younger.
It worked. She finally got in the door with the retailer, and her charm and knowledge did the rest from there - she was offered the job on the spot.
After three years of futility, I really can't blame her for fudging her birthdate. It is a sad commentary indeed on the mindset of many employers that they automatically and unthinkingly reject valuable talent because that talent is of a certain age. And this problem is nothing new - it's why Forty Plus, the support group for unemployed executives and professionals over 40, was founded in 1939, when conditions in the job market were not that much different from what they are now.
But what does it say about us, the job seekers, that we are willing to lie about our age in order to get noticed by employers? Would you fudge your age on an application in order to increase your odds of getting called back? Do you think it is ever defensible to do so, even if you would not? Share your thoughts in the comments.
(Here I should put in a good word for Nexxt as a potential employer. When I interviewed for a public relations opening there last summer, I was pleasantly surprised when the HR staffer who called to conduct the initial prescreening interview was older than I was.)
Sandy Smith is a veteran freelance writer, editor and public relations professional who lives in Philadelphia. Besides blogging for BusinessWorkForce.com, he has written for numerous publications and websites, would be happy to do your resume, and is himself actively seeking career opportunities on Nexxt. Check out his LinkedIn profile and read his other posts on BusinessWorkForceBlog.com.
All of us share the same goal as the millions of others looking for work: We want something steady that will make good use of our talents and skills and (in the best of all possible worlds) pays us commensurate with the value we have acquired through years of experience.
Trouble is, many employers would rather not do that last thing if they can avoid having to do so, even if (a) doing so is more cost-effective in the long run and (b) many of those self-same, experienced, long-term unemployed older workers are now willing to do what they've been doing for years for less than they had been doing it before.
Unfortunately, the roboscreeners who take the first pass at online job applications have no idea about any of this. All they see is the date of birth the applicant entered on the form.
Smart employers who wish to avoid age discrimination complaints and lawsuits refrain from asking this question, but, as a recent Huffington Post article notes, many large companies are asking it anyway, for reasons that make little sense, as they can always ask for the birthdate when they are ready to conduct a background check for their new hire.
The companies mentioned in the HuffPost article are all retailers, but I will wager that they are not the only businesses doing this. If large retailers are asking for birthdates, surely there are companies asking their candidates for managerial, supervisory, and executive positions in business for the same information.
What's an experienced older worker to do to get noticed, given this roadblock in their path to the hiring manager? It seems there are two answers: 1. Dodge the question. 2. Lie.
1. This is certainly the more ethical choice. It should be possible to leave the date of birth field blank, or just enter all zeroes if it is a required response. But what if that too isn't possible?
Ruth Lyons, a 59-year-old florist quoted in the HuffPost story, chose strategic lying. After failing repeatedly to get an interview with a local retailer, she decided to change her birthdate on her application to make it appear that she was 18 years younger.
It worked. She finally got in the door with the retailer, and her charm and knowledge did the rest from there - she was offered the job on the spot.
After three years of futility, I really can't blame her for fudging her birthdate. It is a sad commentary indeed on the mindset of many employers that they automatically and unthinkingly reject valuable talent because that talent is of a certain age. And this problem is nothing new - it's why Forty Plus, the support group for unemployed executives and professionals over 40, was founded in 1939, when conditions in the job market were not that much different from what they are now.
But what does it say about us, the job seekers, that we are willing to lie about our age in order to get noticed by employers? Would you fudge your age on an application in order to increase your odds of getting called back? Do you think it is ever defensible to do so, even if you would not? Share your thoughts in the comments.
(Here I should put in a good word for Nexxt as a potential employer. When I interviewed for a public relations opening there last summer, I was pleasantly surprised when the HR staffer who called to conduct the initial prescreening interview was older than I was.)
By Sandy Smith
Sandy Smith is a veteran freelance writer, editor and public relations professional who lives in Philadelphia. Besides blogging for BusinessWorkForce.com, he has written for numerous publications and websites, would be happy to do your resume, and is himself actively seeking career opportunities on Nexxt. Check out his LinkedIn profile and read his other posts on BusinessWorkForceBlog.com.
Become a member to take advantage of more features, like commenting and voting.
Register or sign in today!