>If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised.
Clearly, CLEARLY, employers in the US are finicky and capricious, I'm not disputing that. The study in the article proves this. I'm arguing they are irrationally so. Let's take the worst case scenario. What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later? Obviously, if I do that with every job it raises (legitimate) questions, but what if I just did it once, and I had a good employment history prior. What possible reason is there to punish such a person? He took a few months off (on his dime) one time in his life and now he's unhirable?
The insanity comes in that this scenario is not what happens. Generally, people lose their jobs, and it takes awhile to find another, and apparently if you cross the magic threshold of six months, you're now a lazy slob.
" What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later?"
Nothing. The big question is what you do in month 8 when you decide to re-enter the work force. You've made it harder to find a job, but if you had enough savings to voluntarily take 7 months off, then presumably you have sufficient savings to plug the hole.
If you want to spend seven months watching TV, then document it. Explain your motivation, what you gained from the experience, etc. My earlier point was that the "we shall not speak of this time" gap in the resume is the problem, not that you were not making money during a period of time.
Everything in life is a job, including watching TV. You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something. At least that is how I take the whole thing.
>You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something.
In context of this article, most people aren't even given a chance to account for that time. Their application gets filtered out and they are never called in for an interview. That's one problem. Another problem is that it may not be relevant at all. Worse, it can be something that is highly personal. What if you had health problems and you had to take time off, should you really need to disclose something like this?
I am referring to accounting on the resume, not in an interview setting. Even getting sick and caring for yourself is a job, which could easily be accounted for, without going into too much detail.
Whether you should have to is another matter, but it seems clear that you do have to if you want equal chances with others. That doesn't make it right, but you have to work with the constraints you are given.
Clearly, CLEARLY, employers in the US are finicky and capricious, I'm not disputing that. The study in the article proves this. I'm arguing they are irrationally so. Let's take the worst case scenario. What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later? Obviously, if I do that with every job it raises (legitimate) questions, but what if I just did it once, and I had a good employment history prior. What possible reason is there to punish such a person? He took a few months off (on his dime) one time in his life and now he's unhirable?
The insanity comes in that this scenario is not what happens. Generally, people lose their jobs, and it takes awhile to find another, and apparently if you cross the magic threshold of six months, you're now a lazy slob.