I'm not sure if it's this or my age that's harming me.

Just last Wednesday I got the ole "F*** Off" from a great job interview by phone instead of letter. The person took great pains to tell me that my age had nothing to do with it, which tells me that it was EXACTLY the reason I didn't get the job. She "encouraged" me to apply for the same job at a location that was about another 13 miles from my home and I did so immediately. I wonder if the encouragement was serious or if I was supposed to decline because of distance.

It never occurred to me that length of time unemployed may be a factor, too. Thank you for the interesting Post.

PEACE!

it would be a great way to help others out.

PEACE!

I worked for DOL for 24 years and retired 14 years ago. Even though I left so long ago, things have not changed. If anything employers have gotten much worse.

I could not believe how twisted and crazy employers were getting even in 1998. It used to drive me out of my mind seeing what employers were demanding of applicants. They were literally demanding all a person's blood and their first born to get hired. And anymore I just hate what employers are able to do. They are not happy unless they have a grip on your private parts these days.

The long term unemployed barrier really takes the cake though. And I am sorry to say ageism is more rampant now than it ever was. Ageism started growing big time in the 1980's. Employers just flat decided that older workers were too much of a burden. And during the 1990's I was seeing huge numbers of 50 somethings being dumped so they could not qualify for any retirement benefits.

The GOP and big business has structurally changed the labor market in ways that mean a career is over by 45 for the most part. Now that the social contract is gone, an employee is expendable at any time for any reason no matter how spurious. It is called "work at will". And as unions have declined the employer class has gotten more and brutal and demanding.

Things will get worse and won't change until workers and voters understand that they have a right to DEMAND a fair labor market. When workers allowed the powers that be end the social contract they were done.

The trend with employment today is that corporations want to move into a contract workers ONLY labor market.

Welcome to the New Normal. Brought to you by declining influence of Labor, business-first policies from both sides of the aisle, and the radicalization/anti-reality bias of the GOP. And I hate to say it, but Obama's not doing all that much to slow things down. Even his healthcare bill, while accomplishing some good, only further ensconces the interests of private insurance providers. You even hear it in language, as economist-speak has trickled into the general vernacular. When wage laborors actually see themselves as "units of labor," rather than human beings, it's game over.
(Side point, because I'm a stickler: "literally" demanding blood and first-born children is still illegal.)

because there are so many well qualified candidates. I have been passed over for two positions of late that I was easily qualified for and I am still employed, just hunting for something a bit different with potential for advancement.

That's undoubtedly what the Repugs would say.

Even short term laid off are affected. One co. here told someone not to send them laid off people as applicants. There is a perception that in a layoff, the "problem" people are laid off, and they aren't essential or valued employees.

My co. had a significant layoff two years ago. I would say that it is true that the problem employees were laid off first. That is natural. But our layoff was so large that it cut into some good employees whose jobs were done away with or absorbed by other employees. Still, how is a prospective employer to know the difference?

I say it doesn't matter. Someone who wasn't working out at one company may very well work out for another. And there's nothing like a layoff to get a complacent employee to kick it up a notch. I say that because some of the ones laid off missed a lot of work, didn't work hard, took their jobs for granted (you know the type).

But let's face it: If you're mid-fifties or older and you're laid off, you may very well never get another job in your field. You may have been, in effect, forced to retire a decade early.

I'm in danger of being laid off. I'm 58, but look like I'm in my 40's, I'm told. I'm healthy, high energy, happy disposition, highly skilled, personable. But if I'm laid off, I know that it's likely I won't be hired in for the same job I have now. I'm not laid off but have been to three job interviews. What a difference from decades ago, when I'd show up, answer a few questions, and boom, I was hired. NOW, I'm definitely qualified (not over qualified), they like me, I like them, but they have zeroed in on ONE thing I said as a reason for not hiring me (and hiring someone younger, no doubt). It's obvious. They don't say, "We're worried about your age." They encourage you to interview. They want to show they are equal opportunity. But they just won't hire you..

So I know that if I'm laid off, it would be even worse. With the same result: no job. I will be in effect forced into retirement at 58. I can't retire, of course. So I guess I'm lucky that I live in a large city and have a chance at getting temporary work to pay for my insurance premium.

as going to a dating service and saying you want marriage but you are only willing to date married people or people who are recently divorced. If you will leave an employer for a new one, what makes the new one think you won't drop them like a steaming turd when you find something better. It's stupid thinking.

But we don't have such a gov't -- and sleezy corprats would skirt the law anyway. They've abused workers for too long with utter impunity. But that could be remedied too - IF we had a gov't that represented its people. We don't.