# Voluntary Unemployment



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

17041704 said:


> Personally I don't care if it's some junior / basic posts but for those that require more decisionmaking / judgments I would be curious to know why/how he/she decided to do that knowing he/she is going against the prevailing culture. Their answer and reaction may help me assess how they deal with risks and their priorities and whether I feel comfortable having him/her working this particular job.


Ok cool. So it sounds like in your view the prevailing culture does not accept voluntary employment as a viable option.

Therefore as an employer you would 1) require justification and 2) use your individual judgment to determine whether that justification is good enough for you.


----------



## 17041704 (May 28, 2020)

OrchidSugar said:


> Ok cool. So it sounds like in your view the prevailing culture does not accept voluntary employment as a viable option.
> 
> Therefore as an employer you would 1) require justification and 2) use your individual judgment to determine whether that justification is good enough for you.


yes my view is that the prevailing culture does not view favourably towards voluntary unemployment and personally i disagree with that but no im not looking for justifications to convince me he/she is the right person because that implies i assume he/she is not the right person to begin with

in fact im seeking the opposite - reasons which may indicate he/she is the wrong person to hire for that particular job

interview is a process of learning about ur applicants and shortlisting candidates so basically all candidates should have a reasonable chance of success it would be silly to interview ppl u do not believe u will hire

there could be a thousand different reasons behind voluntary unemployment and im not a mindreader i would be interested to learn their reasons and circumstances. their ans may tell me sth abt them which may be gd or bad for the job depending on the job in question

they can tell me they have enough money to take a break or they have other priorities in life and its fine and i have hired such ppl in the past

personally i dont believe in perfect match in qualifications and experience etc ive seen too many failures in that regard these r not the most important things imo they r mostly arbitrary stuff to help u narrow down the number of ppl u have to consider


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

17041704 said:


> personally i dont believe in perfect match in qualifications and experience etc ive seen too many failures in that regard these r not the most important things imo they r mostly arbitrary stuff to help u narrow down the number of ppl u have to consider


Good point about narrowing down. I forget that a hiring manager is not only looking to find the right candidate, but also weed out candidates because of the high number of applicants


----------



## chriscortezhunt (Nov 16, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> Hmm, without making a personalized pro/con list based on individual family perspectives or professional skills/ qualifications, is the default (cultural) position that voluntary unemployment is a bit immoral?


I may not know what the best answer to your question would be...

Nonetheless, I'm aware of my Biblical worldviews concerning the sinfulness of humanity.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

The company I worked for would cite that history as high risk that the individual might leave the company in the lurch at any given time, wasting the time (6-12 months for my dept) and resources invested on their behalf to develop them for the job. Heck, despite corporate policy being up to 6 months maternity leave, I was told that my career in the field would be over if I actually took the full leave. Illegal? Sure, but in an “employ at will state”, a comoany or boss can flat out lie about you to justify firing and make ot appear legal.


----------



## GusWriter (Jun 13, 2012)

For me I equate your description below with what you say you are not talking about. Sure, usually sabbatical means you still have a job the same place but you are talking about a year away, and in today's labor market if you have skills you can dust off and get up to date after a year away, it does not seem that outrageous. Matter of fact, I've heard of a few people doing it already.



OrchidSugar said:


> Question:* Is it socially acceptable to not work in America if you are of working age?* I'm talking about voluntarily deciding to leave the workforce simply because you want to and have the means to. ... I am *NOT* talking about the following cases:
> 
> *Work or educational sabbatical*
> *How would you react to hearing that they spent their time doing whatever they wanted: visiting museums, going for walks, reading books, creating art and music, watching TV, spending time with family and friends, etc?*


I'll add that I'd be concerned if they did this every 3 years or so. But lets say they did it at 33yo and again at 44 yo, I'd not be concerned.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

GusWriter said:


> I'll add that I'd be concerned if they did this every 3 years or so. But lets say they did it at 33yo and again at 44 yo, I'd not be concerned.


Why would you be concerned if the skills were still there?


----------



## GusWriter (Jun 13, 2012)

OrchidSugar said:


> Why would you be concerned if the skills were still there?


I suppose it depends on the job and the needs. If you hire somebody that you are depending to run or be involved in long-term projects, be a stable client rep, invest time training/familiarizing them with your work environment, etc., then you want their history to show they'll be stable. If you just need somebody to fill a gap for a year or two and you already have fairly high turnover at a position, then no it would not be a big deal. The companies I work with are not huge companies, but some are larger local ones and they tend to like to have stability for several years where possible. Turnover in a lot of positions is a disruption and if it can be avoided it makes things run smoother.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

GusWriter said:


> I suppose it depends on the job and the needs. If you hire somebody that you are depending to run or be involved in long-term projects, be a stable client rep, invest time training/familiarizing them with your work environment, etc., then you want their history to show they'll be stable. If you just need somebody to fill a gap for a year or two and you already have fairly high turnover at a position, then no it would not be a big deal. The companies I work with are not huge companies, but some are larger local ones and they tend to like to have stability for several years where possible. Turnover in a lot of positions is a disruption and if it can be avoided it makes things run smoother.


OK Got it--I guess this makes sense!


----------

