Unemployment...

I can explain it all to you, without outing you, I hope. You and I have been together on event coverage many times in the last decade so I've heard all your stories of hiring and firing and assorted woe.

I also know you have a resume posted on a newspaper association website.

If you copy some of the sections of your resume into Google or Yahoo, you'll see where it matches, word for word, job sites. So you plagiarized your own resume, basically. In your unemployment, you couldn't even write an original resume?

Your resume also indicates that you were a sports editor for 11 years. But you weren't. You've regaled lots of us with stories about how they dumped you a few years into that sports editor role and then begged you back but didn't make you sports editor again for a few years. If you're applying to all the usual suspects around here, don't you think the sports editors have heard that story, too?

And personal appearance counts in an interview. Don't think it doesn't. It also counts when people you might interview with see you covering an event. I'm not allowed to cover even a baseball game in sweatpants and a dirty T-shirt, who should you?

So back to your original post, not that you actually asked for suggestions, but I would start with not copying your resume from elsewhere, being honest on it, and dressing appropriately on the job and in interviews.

 

Hey Nyspts
I give up..We've worked together so send me a message telling me who you are...I don't know anything about copying resumes or telling lies or whatever you're talking about...My resume was done by three professionals..I thought maybe a different version would help but obviously it didn't..An official from the NY Press Association suggested I send a resume to them so I did...To my knowledge, I've never stretched the truth or anything and most people in the area know me...and these sweatpants remarks are way off the wall...If you want to talk, please message me..I only wondered how many people out there are going through my experiences..that's all.
Thanks

 

I am curious: What kind of a seed of doubt does it plant?

This is a legitimate question for many in similar positions. A filled-in resume, from a person with good experience, who has shown he can do the work, and who, obviously, still has a desire and need to still work, and...

What kind of red flags does that raise?

As far as the size or circulation of a paper, why not leave it to the prospective employee to decide whether he or she is up for that, or not?

In my humble opinion, there is often way more effort that goes into trying to "figure out" things, and people, than there ought to be in most instances, too much attempt at mind-reading and putting thoughts/words into people's minds and mouths.

 

As I said, I'll give a guy a chance if the clips warrant (assuming I know nothing about an applicant going in). The big question is why would a person with 10 years experience and good clips want to work in podunk for 25K? The real answer to that question is what I'm after, and it's not always pretty.

 

I'd think it would be the red flag that the older journalist is so used to the larger paycheck that they will bolt at the first opportunity, leaving the paper looking for someone again a lot sooner than they'd want to.

Not that I'd blame them for leaving.

 

If a person has experience to indicate that he/she is overqualified for a job, that causes the person doing the hiring to wonder: Is this job candidate good? Is he/she moving to smaller papers because he/she isn't as good as the resume seems to indicate? If this person is really this good, how long will he/she stay around?

 

Sure, maybe that could happen.

I'm not sure leaving after a brief stay because of a perceived better offer is really the perview of the older writer, though. Especially now, when moving up, as quickly as possible, seems prudent to job-seekers and perfectly fine and prevalent among employers (see Sun-Sentinel job thread).

My argument against an older person necessarily bolting that quickly would be that someone who really has ever made way more than they might at some smaller paper really would probably never apply there in the first place. I would think there would be limits, on how much lower someone might be willing to go, and that if they're willing to go to a certain level, well, then that person probably never made very much, relatively speaking, to begin with, even if they did happen to work at a much-larger paper at one time.

This industry --being the generally low-paying thing that it is, anyway -- often has relatively low-paid people even at larger papers.

People who have never worked at larger papers may not realize this, and thus, think that they couldn't possibly offer a salary within, say, $5,000 of what the person maybe used to make.

But they'd be wrong, at least in some instances.

And someone who really has ever been a big name, at a big paper, for a much-larger salary, probably really wouldn't apply.

 

All of what I said being said, however:

mcollar,

My perspective and advice would be this:

It is unfortunate, and, in my opinion, wrong, but the reality is that this industry is, more and more, for the young, and only the young.

So, if you want to stay in it, your best bet probably is to do it as a freelancer or contracted worker. I know what you've been through, because I went through it, and worse, for longer, freelancing for a while before I finally tired of it and the one-sided relationship that that generally entails. It really is all on you, and only on you.

I am keeping the door open to freelancing again, and have even kept applying for journalism jobs that are of interest to me. I know that I'm qualified for many jobs and I still love the business. But, as many have said around here, it doesn't love me back nearly as much, and the older you get, it loves you even less.

So, my advice would be to start looking for a new career, and a new life, as hard as that is to do, and as hard as that is to actually accomplish. I currently have two jobs --both part-time, but both of which I actually like and can easily do well.

Me, I've gone the way of retail (26-30 hours a week) and I also work in a county job, for my area's library system (23 hours a week).

I work hard as far as the hours go, but the actual work is easier (sometimes even on the boring side, when it comes to the library stuff), and when I'm off, I'm really off -- there's no worrying about making phone calls, getting phone calls, planning for tomorrow, worrying about generating work, or having to write, blog or tweet every little thing, if I don't want to. The lack of stress involved is nothing short of amazing, and is becoming worth more and more to me as I see the niceness and the benefits of it.

I worked at a large newspaper, and I like to think I was good at what I did. But I never made a lot. Now, unfortunately, I make even less. But after almost three years f struggling to make ends meet, and having my job-loss impact my life, and me, profoundly, and after working in a series of freelance jobs, temp jobs and short-lived regular jobs, it is just nice to be working regularly and full-time again, in work that I'm enjoying surprisingly much, even if it is different than anything I've ever done before, and even if it is taking two jobs to do it.

It sounds to me like you, too, need that feeling again. Unfortunately, you may have to do some different things at this point to make it occur.

 

These are legitimate questions. I would add: Will this person, who may have been in a management role before, adjust well to being in a non-management role? Will they have conflict with a supervisor who may be decades younger than they are?

 

It's also possible that a prospective employee might have moved around for the betterment of those around him/her - i.e., spouse or other relative got a better job opportunity - and is willing to take something ... just about anything. While it's smart for employers to hunt for red flags, checking references and other colleagues who may know the prospective employee can also alleviate concerns. At some point, some employers need to stop convincing themselves that every overqualified employee has negative excessive baggage or skeletons in the closet.

 

If you are making a hire, you have to be as diligent as possible. That's part of your responsibility. That doesn't mean you've convinced yourself about baggage, skeletons or anything. It means you're doing your job.
Checking with past employers can also be problematic. Case law makes it difficult to say anything about an employee or former employee. If I call someone about a job candidate, he/she may be severely limited on what information can be shared about the job candidate.