Anyone ever quit a job without another lined up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am looking at resumes right now. Two things: It is a red flag if someone isn't working currently. I tend to put these resumes in a second tier because I'm uncertain why they are unemployed. Often i never have to look at the second tier pool, because I find good candidates to interview in my preferred pool.

Second, the longer someone is unemployed, the worse their resume looks to me. If you've gone more than a few months, you're in the reject. This means that you need a plan (and I don't mean a "I'll collect unemployment" plan) that keeps you from falling into the reject pool. Maybe you could line up office temping or have a volunteer post that you've already lined up with a project that is meaningful to your line of work?

In sum, I'd be very cautious to quit without another job lined up.

Do you ever consider that if every HR department does this, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? For example, if you are laid off from a job and then one by one other employers refuse to hire you because you are not working, you will be unemployed for longer and longer? I appreciate that you would consider temping or volunteer work as some attempt to work that may get the person back in your first tier pool, but I would encourage people not to dismiss people just because they aren't working. They may have a good reason that you just don't know (moved across the country for a spouse's job, left to take care of a sick spouse, was laid off when the company downsized…)

They may as equally (if not more likely) have been fired for being incompentent.

Why risk it?

Seriously? Call their previous employer and find out, isn't it listed on the application? There's such discrimination against people who lose jobs.

[Anonymous]

They're "prevented" by law from disclosing that type of information. But it's this: if you unilaterally dismiss all applicants simply because they are unemployed, you can miss out on valuable candidates who may work for less since they are unemployed.

Anyone who unilaterally dismisses unemployed applicants sounds like they a rookie manager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree it is ridiculous to dismiss someone who may have the specific background you're after just because they had time out of employment for what may have been (and probably was) a very legitimate reason.

Exactly. Success is finding value in candidates. Someone who has excellent experience but is currently unemployed will likely demand less than someone already employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They may as equally (if not more likely) have been fired for being incompentent.

Why risk it?

Why "risk" it? What are you risking? If you're too stupid to figure out if a candidate is not capable of fulfilling your open position, then you're a pretty shitty judge of talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am looking at resumes right now. Two things: It is a red flag if someone isn't working currently. I tend to put these resumes in a second tier because I'm uncertain why they are unemployed. Often i never have to look at the second tier pool, because I find good candidates to interview in my preferred pool.

Second, the longer someone is unemployed, the worse their resume looks to me. If you've gone more than a few months, you're in the reject. This means that you need a plan (and I don't mean a "I'll collect unemployment" plan) that keeps you from falling into the reject pool. Maybe you could line up office temping or have a volunteer post that you've already lined up with a project that is meaningful to your line of work?

In sum, I'd be very cautious to quit without another job lined up.

Hopefully you don't work in DC as it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their employment status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hopefully you don't work in DC as it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their employment status.

and it is truly people's like you that make hiring managers cautious, people's who chuck out the idea that it's discrimination without any knowledge about hr. ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hopefully you don't work in DC as it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their employment status.

and it is truly people's like you that make hiring managers cautious, people's who chuck out the idea that it's discrimination without any knowledge about hr. ...

What's truly terrifying are hiring managers like you, who don't even know the employment laws of the jurisdiction in which they operate.

http://www.proskauer.com/publications/client-alert/law-prohibiting-discrimination-based-on-unemployment-status/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hopefully you don't work in DC as it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their employment status.

and it is truly people's like you that make hiring managers cautious, people's who chuck out the idea that it's discrimination without any knowledge about hr. ...

You might want to do some research before posting. Being unemployed is a protected category in DC. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/district-of-columbia-employment-discrimination-31989.html

[Anonymous]

After I graduated and we moved to this area, I took a break from working. There are a lot of reasons for doing so, and it would have made the situation far worse if I hadn't taken one, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about the consequences of that decision. Lately I've been worried that when I'm ready to get back to work I'll run into people like that hiring manager and not even get the chance to show what I can do. And here's the thing, I'm really good at what I do. I'm organized and meticulous, and I pour myself into work and it's terribly disappointing to have my worst fears about interviewing confirmed.

But, I guess the upside is that I won't end up working for someone who can't look past what's on a resume to see the person in front of them.

[Anonymous]

A lot of you sound like you are living in some ideal world where the unemployed are not discriminated against. It sounds like a nice place.

In my experience (on both sides of the interview table), screening for employment status is just one more easy filter that is applied by employers. Every job posted gets tons of applicants and companies need to apply filters to reduce the pool to a manageable number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of you sound like you are living in some ideal world where the unemployed are not discriminated against. It sounds like a nice place.

In my experience (on both sides of the interview table), screening for employment status is just one more easy filter that is applied by employers. Every job posted gets tons of applicants and companies need to apply filters to reduce the pool to a manageable number.

Sure, use filters. Just not illegal ones. If you are a hiring manager or a recruiter you should know what is illegal in your jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of you sound like you are living in some ideal world where the unemployed are not discriminated against. It sounds like a nice place.

In my experience (on both sides of the interview table), screening for employment status is just one more easy filter that is applied by employers. Every job posted gets tons of applicants and companies need to apply filters to reduce the pool to a manageable number.

In DC it is illegal, but in VA and MD it is legal. Even in DC, proving this is the reason you were not interviewed could be a bit tricky, so for all practical purposes, it might as well be legal.

There is such a thing as work ethic. There is nothing wrong with electing to take time off. But there is also nothing wrong with a potential employer questioning your work ethic for making that move.

[Anonymous]

I'm a hiring manager (or, I should say, I hire positions when I have openings. None at the moment, so am I still a hiring manager? Deep thoughts.).

I am in VA.

I always prefer a working candidate to a non-working candidate but that does not mean I won't consider a non-working candidate. It just means working candidate gets an A grade and non-working candidate gets a B grade UNTIL I interview/meet both candidates and can judge them both for personality, fit, all that jazz.

I wouldn't reject someone only for being unemployed but as others have said, we have a bias toward people who are actively working. We all have to be very very careful not to let our personal bias impact ethical behavior in hiring practices. Thankfully I have an HR Director that does the heavy lifting and pre-screens candidates based on agreed-upon criteria and helps keep me from getting sued over such things.

[Anonymous]

OP here: Thanks for all the feedback. I haven't quit and right now don't plan to unless things just get untenable. I saw some jobs recently that appealed to me and have got phone interviews set up. I should add here that I have suffered some deaths recently (my mom and someone else near and dear to me) and those losses are part of what have me thinking, "Life is short, so why the eff am I staying here suffering through this BS?"

[Anonymous]

It's more prudent to have a job lined up. I did it - quit without a job - because I was working for a soul-sucking-sociopath. It was demoralizing. I know everyone says their boss is bad, but I generally have gotten on well with people I report to. And I was in the Bermuda triangle of divorcing, my mother was dying, and my boss was crazy-making. He had a serious trust issue in the whole department, and turnover was outrageous. these were advance degreed technical professionals who don't grow on trees.

It WAS stressful looking for something else, but I had a happy ending and I now work in a lovely supportive environment where I can be productive and shine.