Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should take the job. He's lucky to have been offered anything. There's not much demand for an old HR guy.

Not OP. Mean response. I hope karma bites you. Idiot. I feel bad for your spouse.

Its not mean. Its truth and good advice. Take the job and keep looking-its always easier to find another job when you are currently employed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should take the job. He's lucky to have been offered anything. There's not much demand for an old HR guy.

Not OP. Mean response. I hope karma bites you. Idiot. I feel bad for your spouse.

I’m an old man and I agree with PP. don’t get hung up on what you used to make when you are 50+

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A choppy resume would indicate to me that he's not a strong performer. "Change of bosses, management, etc." should not be a reason for frequent job disruption.

This. One or two short stints can be because of circumstances beyond your control. A resume full of short stints suggests he is not a strong performer.

Don't agree, but agree that hiring managers are too impatient to find out about the story. One can be laid off, say, 4 times all for 1.5 years or less for nothing that has to do with performance. Your spouse needs to have their story clear and ready to tell succinctly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should take the job. He's lucky to have been offered anything. There's not much demand for an old HR guy.

Not OP. Mean response. I hope karma bites you. Idiot. I feel bad for your spouse.

dp but why was it mean? isn't that factually correct statement??

Anonymous wrote:He should take the job. He's lucky to have been offered anything. There's not much demand for an old HR guy.

Not OP. Mean response. I hope karma bites you. Idiot. I feel bad for your spouse.

He should take the job. He's lucky to have been offered anything. There's not much demand for an old HR guy.

Can he broaden his search to include recruiter gigs?

While I hate to say it, his age may be a negative factor in his search.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A choppy resume would indicate to me that he's not a strong performer. "Change of bosses, management, etc." should not be a reason for frequent job disruption.

This. One or two short stints can be because of circumstances beyond your control. A resume full of short stints suggests he is not a strong performer.

Agreed. Also, shouldn’t HR professionals know how to market themselves and weed their resumes out of the piles of applicants?

Anonymous wrote:A choppy resume would indicate to me that he's not a strong performer. "Change of bosses, management, etc." should not be a reason for frequent job disruption.

This. One or two short stints can be because of circumstances beyond your control. A resume full of short stints suggests he is not a strong performer.

I mean, how many entries does he have on his resume? A resume isn't a CV and shouldn't be his entire work history.

His recent work history also matters more than his past history particularly someone in his 50s. How long was he out of work for before he took that 1/3 salary job?

It kind of sounds like he wasn't in a good place recently and he took what he could get.

A choppy resume would indicate to me that he's not a strong performer. "Change of bosses, management, etc." should not be a reason for frequent job disruption.

Anonymous wrote:As a senior level HR guy, he should be able to answer your question.

LOL. Good one PP.

As a senior level HR guy, he should be able to answer your question.

DH is at a senior level in HR. 50’s. Got laid off and has struggled to find another job. Has worked for some great companies but has some 1 year/18 month stints on his resume. Mostly through no fault of his own - change of bosses, management, etc. Has done consulting for 2 years keeping skills relevant. Recently accepted a job earning much lower salary (like 1/3 of previous salary) through a connection. Does a choppy resume mean he is not going to get hired anywhere else?