sign O the times

[Undertoad]

Recently I have noticed that a few of my peeps from old times have

ENTIRELY FICTIONAL

linkedin.com histories

holy shit ENTIRELY just MADE THE FUCK UP history, but looking all respectable and really important and shit

And I think, is this is the next thing? well of course this is the fucking next big thing: entirely fictional, yet *perfect* social media backgrounds to present to potential employers.

OF COURSE.

[Clodfobble]

Realistically I think people have always lied on their resumes, it's just that you never got to see your friends' and ex-coworkers' resumes before... I think if anything we're headed towards more accountability in the long run. Too easy for employers to find people their candidates "used" to work with and just ask.

[sexobon]

... and vice versa. Job seekers can research prospective employers including social media comments, reviews, and watching their job offerings history for high employee turnover rates indicative of internal problems. But, when was the last time an employer said to a candidate about a job description: "We'll be saddling you with undependable subordinates who were hired for cheap, ghosting peers for whom you'll have to take up the slack, and jackass superiors who got their promotions brownnosing the owners/CEO. Additional duties include being scapegoat for resulting customer dissatisfaction." Job seekers are just doing the same propaganda job on employers that employers have been doing during job interviews forever. Turnabout is fair play.

The savvy job seeker gets an interview that way; but, hands the employer an "updated" resume with no fabrications. That way the candidate doesn't provide the employer with grounds for later being fired for misrepresentation on their application. Any misrepresentations the employer makes will be verbal during the job interview. The employer can create plausible deniability by denying having made any representation; or, claiming there was a misunderstanding and the applicant had the opportunity to ask for clarification.

Playing this game isn't necessary in all career fields; however, in some it's become de rigueur. Some employers are looking for candidates who if they aren't cheating, they aren't trying. The culture, it is a-changing.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Recently I have noticed that a few of my peeps from old times have

ENTIRELY FICTIONAL

linkedin.com histories

holy shit ENTIRELY just MADE THE FUCK UP history, but looking all respectable and really important and shit

And I think, is this is the next thing? well of course this is the fucking next big thing: entirely fictional, yet *perfect* social media backgrounds to present to potential employers.

OF COURSE.

Most depressing post I've read in a looonnng time.

Originally Posted by sexobon

Playing this game isn't necessary in all career fields; however, in some it's become de rigueur. Some employers are looking for candidates who if they aren't cheating, they aren't trying. The culture, it is a-changing.

Until I read this part. Even more depressing.

Originally Posted by sexobon

... and vice versa. Job seekers can research prospective employers including social media comments, reviews, and watching their job offerings history for high employee turnover rates indicative of internal problems. But, when was the last time an employer said to a candidate about a job description: "We'll be saddling you with undependable subordinates who were hired for cheap, ghosting peers for whom you'll have to take up the slack, and jackass superiors who got their promotions brownnosing the owners/CEO. Additional duties include being scapegoat for resulting customer dissatisfaction." Job seekers are just doing the same propaganda job on employers that employers have been doing during job interviews forever. Turnabout is fair play.

This part I've learned on my own. True, quite true.

Originally Posted by sexobon

The savvy job seeker gets an interview that way; but, hands the employer an "updated" resume with no fabrications. That way the candidate doesn't provide the employer with grounds for later being fired for misrepresentation on their application. Any misrepresentations the employer makes will be verbal during the job interview. The employer can create plausible deniability by denying having made any representation; or, claiming there was a misunderstanding and the applicant had the opportunity to ask for clarification.

This though seems a promising strategy. I don't know how I'd begin to fabricate a tasty looking fake worm for my interview hook though. Just copy their job requirements (which very often seem impossibly comprehensive) and restate them in the past tense on my presume?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Realistically I think people have always lied on their resumes, it's just that you never got to see your friends' and ex-coworkers' resumes before... I think if anything we're headed towards more accountability in the long run. Too easy for employers to find people their candidates "used" to work with and just ask.

There are no lies on my resume. And, it's not getting me any interviews. Now I wonder if there's causation and not just correlation.

[DanaC]

I honestly thought everybody lied - at least a little bit, on their resume*. Often it's just a little massaging of the truth. So - you have a three month gap in employment and you count on them not checking so far back and extend your previous emplyoment to cover the gap. Or, you add in a couple of duties - maybe you helped a little in meetings a couple of times, so you put that down as attending and contributing to company strategy meetings.

You don't want to misrepresent yourself - there's no point in claiming skills you don't have. It's more about - knowing that some stuff will cripple you before you get to interview. Gaps in employment are a biggie - there might be a thousand and one reasons for an extended period of unemployment but employers don't want someone who needs explaining. And it's about knowing your own capabilities - which may not be adequately illustrated by your stated experience.





If my CV was completely honest it would include a Personal Statement to this effect:

My interests include doing nothing very much of a weekend and watching trashy sci-fi. I am looking for a position that will allow me to work the minimum number of hours required to not have to claim state benefits, preferably with no travel or additional responsiblities involved. I relish neither the opportunity to work in a team nor on my own initiative, nor do I thrive in a fast-paced environment.





*over here we call them CVs

[Sundae]

That is a bit different from being (as I quote) ENTIRELY FICTIONAL.

That's the difference between claiming you changed jobs because you were head-hunted by Sir Alan Sugar rather than admitting you jumped because you knew you were about to be pushed, and had to eat SuperNoodles for two weeks, (when you weren't crying).

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*over here we call them CVs

Yeeeeaaaah...One of you damnable different-words-using-Brits made me learn that one.

Curriculum vitae...Speak English if you're gonna speak English, dammit!

[j/k]