With the economy in the downturn common perception is that the unemployed in such a competitive market are willing to take a job. Any job. But according to an article in Slate Magazine, this is not always the case. In Daniel Gross’ article, Is Any Job Better Than No Job, the answers is sometimes no.
While employers believe that qualified employment candidates will flock to their doors, many job applicants are still reluctant to settle into positions where the salary has been reduced and the benefits diminished. As Gross points out, sometimes an employee would prefer to collect unemployment than work a job that pays a mere $8 per hour.
In theory, there is the belief that employers will be inundated with applications. In truth, employment candidates perceive disparities when the job being offered in one place is substantially less in wages than the job being offered at another location. The difference in salary may make them one to rethink the strategy. Because even if they take the job on a temporary basis and move on when the economy turns around, the Human Resources Manager at the next potential place of employment will ask the obvious question. Why was there stay so short, and is this candidate a flight risk?
Gross’ article is worth reading. The context of it was based on a Wall street Journal Report, which should add even more veracity to the reality versus the theory of the present job market. Despite the economic downturn and the lousy job market, qualified people, employment candidates who demonstrate ample skill sets and clear the background checks as part the preemployment screening program, may be tougher fish to haul in by just offering them “the job.” The employer may need to part with a few more bucks, add some perks, and plan to retain this potential employee for the longer haul rather than as a stop gap solution for an overworked and undermanned staff that is stressed out from withstanding the recent recession.
