I've been applying to jobs recently and am perplexed by a tendency I've noticed. I don't understand why hiring directors tend not to return e-mails and phone calls. Am I that under-qualified? (I don't think I am.) For those on this board who do hiring, what criteria do you use to determine whether somebody gets an acknowledgment of his or her interest in the job?

As a courtesy, I respond to everyone within reason -- I don't respond to those whose applications leave me shaking my head (as in, what is wrong with this person). I try to refer people to other jobs I know about that they might be qualified for. For instance, I might send them to another branch of the company or to a paper of a friend, if I think it's a reasonable possibility. I also tell people when they lack experience and ask that they keep us in mind as their careers progress. I keep in mind that there are people at the end of every application, and that I've been in their place. It doesn't take much effort to send someone an e-mail.

Every time someone's contacted me about a job or internship, I've responded. Usually through e-mail.

When I was searching for a job several years ago, some papers did not even acknowledge my application. I kept a list of those papers and never again applied to them.

The papers that did have openings, of course, generally put significant effort into their responses.

Of the papers that did not have an opening to offer, I would say more than half acknowledged my application. Some of these responses were more cordial than others. The most cordial was a hard-copy letter from some guy named John E. McIntyre at the Baltimore Sun, before I had had the pleasure of meeting him and knowing what a gentleman he is in person too.

Up to each person where to apply in future, of course. I worked at one paper that had a useless copy chief who spent little time at work, and when he was there, few knew what he did. Most of the applications that came to him might as well have never been sent. But he's been gone for a few years. So your don't-apply list probably will grow as he works at other papers.

So be it. I wouldn't want to work at a paper that was foolish enough to put someone like that in such a position.

Any hiring editor who doesn't acknowledge an applicant, even with something as simple as a form letter saying you didn't make the cut, is someone I wouldn't work for.

Of course, another issue is that most editors take their sweet old time getting back to you. I hate waiting in the dark for a month while the candidate pool is whittled down.

I haven't had to apply for a job cold in a long while, but back in the day, less than half the people I sent my resume to didn't respond.

When I was hiring, I would reply to just about everyone. Since most applied by e-mail, it took half a minute to reply as a courtesy with an initial quasi-form letter.

There were some folks that I'm sure got overlooked, but they were so under-qualified that I didn't feel too bad, especially if they were replying to an ad via snail mail.

Well, if they don't acknowledge your application, you don't really get to choose whether you work for them. And depending on how they respond to you, you can't necessarily tell whether they respond to everyone.

I don't respond to people who apply if they have no newspaper experience, for instance. One advertising woman said she could write creatively. Once an inmate applied out of the blue. A friend of mine got one from a guy who had experience making balloon animals (that probably was as close was he got to journalism). One guy applied with a handwritten letter on lined notebook paper that had the ragged edges on it. Once, some guy sent me an e-mail saying: "I've got nine years of journalism experience. How much do you pay?" That's all he wrote. Anyhow, those applications are at least good for laughs.

As for the copy chief who rarely responded: I always wondered how many applicants he turned off. The paper has a great reputation and is in a very desirable city, yet it gets fewer applications than you would expect. Of course, the paper doesn't deserve its reputation, so maybe it all comes out even.

Thanks for the insights.

I've only applied to places that have published openings (on journalismjobs.com, internal sites or elsewhere). A co-worker says that some places post job ads but plan to hire internally and that that may be why I'm not getting responses. Anybody heard of that?

Sure, sometimes jobs go to internal candidates. But even then, I wouldn't handle responses differently. Even when a job goes to an internal candidate, I'm always looking for good people in case another job opens up. There aren't many really good journalists, so we're all competing for them. And if it takes so little effort to respond to people, why not just do it?

Oh, and I apply wherever I want to work. I don't care whether it's got an ad running. I've gotten jobs that way. Papers track good candidates.

I work for a chain of community papers, most of them in B.C. I applied for a job in the chain at a larger paper a few months ago.
The editor there, who I've known for years, gave me a call before they made the offficial announcement to tell me they had hired someone else (also in the chain).
Very much appreciated (even though I had already heard through the grapevine the other guy had been hired).
As for papers sharing resumes, our chain does it a lot of the time. That's how we hired our new reporter at a small paper north of here. She applied for the same job I did, and the editor there forwarded the resumes he thought would fit our job to our publisher.

Yes, I've heard of it, but you would be wise not to let that possibility stop you from applying.

Years ago, I decided (with some justification) that internal hiring was why I wasn't getting any bites with one employer in particular. I blew off the next opening I saw there, even though it seemed like a pretty good fit for me. About six months later, I ran into and congratulated the person who got that job. He thanked me for not applying---after he started, he found out that they had been impressed by my earlier applications and were trying to get me on board.

Never again.

I agree, onceahack. I was passed over for a job recently that went internally. Later, the ME admitted his hands were tied by the collective agreement. Since then, I've received some lucrative freelance work from that paper based on the strength of my resume and interview. It's not the same as an employment position, but it's a reminder that it's worth pursuing any possibilities. And it might be the start of something. Who knows.

I also can't emphasize enough the need for follow-up on an application. In the early 1990s, I applied for a position with a daily elsewhere, then called to find out whether my resume had been received (nudge, nudge) and whether the hiring supervisor needed any more info (wink, wink). She said they sorted the 86 resumes into a do-not-call pile and a short list. I was in the do-not-call pile. The job ad emphasized computer layout skills, which I had just acquired after nearly a decade of manual cut-and-paste. Turns out they were just getting into computer pagination and really needed someone with manual skills first, plus the ability to move into the computer realm shortly. Because of the ad, my cover letter emphasized recently-acquired computer skills, while my resume emphasized manual layout. Long story short: I made the follow-up call, made a strong pitch, got moved to the short list and ended up with the job.

When I most recently wanted to change jobs, I contacted papers that interested me, whether or not they were running ads. I didn't hear back from one of the papers. Turns out the guy who was in charge of hiring was lousing up his job. Someone else at the paper heard I might be looking elsewhere and recruited me, and I now have the first guy's job, with much better pay and perks. This is the best job of my career, but I wouldn't have gotten it if I'd stopped with first contact. They demoted the first guy, so he left. I didn't know the back story till I interviewed. My job was never advertised.

That's right -- don't wait for a job to be advertised. Some papers never, or hardly ever, advertise because they don't have to. And other papers may not have a job right then, but the hiring editor may remember you when a position does open up.

I'm trying to think of a scenario in which a "collective agreement" would prevent an ME from hiring people. Especially if the ME then concocted a freelance arrangement. I'm not sure how that squares, exactly.

I was visiting friends (in the business) decades ago I'll admit, and applied at the local paper for a job. Friends said there was a hiring freeze in effect. I got the job. Moral: You've got nothing to loose by trying.

Sorry for the inexactitude. Being outside the agreement, I can't cite chapter and verse. However, the ME's point was that the agreement required the company to advertise all openings, but also to give preference to bargaining unit members seeking advancement before bringing in someone from outside the unit. Potentially contradictory, but not uncommon. The agreement does not prevent management from purchasing freelance services.

That still doesn't add up. Sounds like the ME had enough work for two openings and was using the contract as an excuse not to hire you full-time and as a way to blame the union. And nothing you mentioned would have prevented the ME from hiring you and providing you benefits.

If the paper had only enough money for one full-time job (including salary and benefits) and had to give preference to the inside candidate because of the agreement, isn't it essentially being kept from hiring the outside person? Freelance work doesn't come at the same price as a full-time hire. And freelance work isn't typically the same workload as a full-time job, so it doesn't sound as if the paper had enough work for two openings.

It doesn't matter whether it adds up, is logical, fair, or otherwise. It is what it is. The agreement requires that openings be advertised. The ME did that. The agreement requires that preference be given to unit members. The ME did that. End of story.

As I said before, it's not uncommon. The provincial government does it all the time. For an example, see here. Note the second graf, which states: This is a bargaining unit position restricted to current civil service employees represented by the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union. All current employees applying for job competitions are required to include their employee ID number in order to be considered as a bargaining unit applicant. External applicants will be considered if there are no qualified bargaining unit applicants.

The only difference between these two examples is that the provincial government stated its restriction up front.

Thanks for clarifying, Gdcfa.

My concern is not with the rules of agreement; it was with the original phrase "the ME's hands were tied by the collective agreement." That might be the ME's version. Too often, an ME's interpretation of a contract is used as a crutch and an excuse. The ME merely has to give preference, which means that all things being equal, he or she would hire from within (which is generally good management policy, guild shop or not). And they have to advertise the job, also good standard policy.

I guess I'm leaping off a bit from your situation, which seems to have turned out fine for all parties involved. It also has nuances unique to your side of the border. I'm concerned more with convenient misinterpretations of labor agreements: "I can't give you a raise" or "I can't hire the person I wanted to." No well-functioning organized newsroom would deny itself qualified outsiders. But I know plenty of dysfunctional ones that would exploit the agreement on both sides: whether (on the labor side) to create a flawed tenure track system or (from management's view) using free-lance employees in order to get the work without having to provide basic benefits.

I agree, Gdcfa, that the ramifications of this particular hire might not matter to you as you hustle and pay the bills. But the situation and how we frame it matters to many of the rest of us.

One more question to keep in mind: What was the ME's incentive for telling you that the union was the reason for not hiring you? If the ME hired an equally qualified person, then why feel compelled to give you a reason that doesn't quite add up to skeptical examination?

The mere fact that management would blame the union - and try to make a potential employee feel ill will toward the union - is hardly remarkable - sadly.

Walrus, what I've learned from being on both sides of hiring:

* Apply wherever you want to work. Don't assume that they have your old application or that they don't have openings just because they're not advertising.
* If an exceptional candidate turns up during a hiring freeze, papers often find a way to hire.
* Don't let a dud recruiter turn you off a paper. If you judge a paper by one person, you might make false assumptions or miss opportunities.
* Job hunting is a competition. For initial screening, your resume counts most. But if you don't send a cover letter or send a generic one, you're wasting an opportunity to distinguish yourself. By writing tightly, fluidly and compellingly, you show what you can do beyond your resume. Good cover letters take about half a page and let recruiters know what's special about you and why you want to work there. Don't waste words on the mundane. For example, many people say they're hard-working. (Who admits he's not?) Be specific. For instance, if your boss says you work like a pack mule, that carries more weight than you saying it. No need to say the obvious, either. For instance, unless it's a telecommuting job, recruiters know you're willing to relocate. Be selective about what you do say. For example, I've seen cover letters with info that was irrelevant or off the wall: applicants who write that they don't drink or smoke, who offer details about a messy divorce or separation, and so on. It's not only that I don't need to know that stuff; it shows the applicant has shaky judgment.
* Don't call hiring editors unless they provide a phone number. If there's no phone number in an ad, there's a reason for that.
* It's OK to follow up an application with a follow-up e-mail nudge. (If someone doesn't respond, something like: Just want to make sure you received my application.) But once is enough unless the recruiter contacts you.
* If you test or interview and don't get the job, it wouldn't hurt to ask politely why you didn't. You might get constructive criticism.
* When you interview, you're interviewing the paper as much as it's interviewing you. Try to talk with a variety of people for a range of information, not just happy recruiting talk. Don't take everything -- good or bad -- as gospel. Every paper has problems. A good paper doesn't lie or cover up.
* Don't judge a paper by reputation alone. There are reputable papers that are crappy to work for. There are great jobs at papers with lesser reputations. There are papers going through painful cuts, so some people voluntarily give up good jobs. I'm not saying every job is a winner. But some situations that others dismiss can be great career builders or just great jobs. The trick is knowing how to distinguish and not letting others' assumptions sway you.
*Make sure your references are saying good things about you. Don't assume. Good recruiters also check beyond the references you provide. If you had problems at a previous job, don't be surprised if a recruiter finds out. When I hire, I want to know upfront. Depending on the circumstances, I might give someone a chance. But if I find out something ugly that wasn't disclosed, there's no chance.
* Some of the best times to make contact with a paper are when you're not job hunting. For instance, if you're going somewhere on vacation, it wouldn't hurt to ask to do an informational interview with a hiring editor at a paper you might want to work for later. If you're a good candidate, they will make time. That's especially the case nowadays, when papers have tight budgets. If you make a good impression, they will keep you in mind if something right opens up. Don't offer to pay your own way for a real interview. I'm talking about doing purely informational interviews while you're in town anyway.
* It's hard for papers to find good copy editors. Even if an opening is advertised, papers are lucky to get a handful of good candidates from among dozens who apply. That's why even top newspapers have to recruit.
* If you're not getting any nibbles despite many applications, there might be something wrong with your package. Consider asking someone trustworthy and honest to review your materials if you haven't done so. (Personally, I always have someone edit my stuff.)

Good luck with your job hunt.

The ME was forced to provide an answer when I called back to find out why I didn't get the job. I was polite, but persistent, and maintain a reasonable relationship with the paper to this day. I don't see the need for skepticism about the ME's response. It not only stands up in comparison to other collective agreements, at least here in my part of the world, but I am aware of one other instance at the same paper in which a friend had exactly the same experience. It was nothing personal, and it appears by all accounts to be true. I don't see the benefit in waging an ideological battle that is likely unwinnable from the outside. If the union members are happy with the situation, and it appears they are, why would they fight to change things for a non-member?

This is what I usually do:

* Internal applicants and anyone interviewed gets a phone call to let them know the job went to someone else. If they seem promising for a future position, I encourage them to apply again and stay in touch.

* External applicants get an e-mail (mostly a form letter with a personal note/piece of advice added).

* If the external applicant seems promising (someone to watch), then I may call and encourage him or her to keep in touch.

I would like to send an e-mail to let applicants know I've received their packets, but this hasn't always been practical.

What amazes me is how many applicants haven't a clue about the paper or even the position they're applying for. I try not to advertise around graduation time because that will guarantee I get a truck load of resumes that are nothing more than a mass mailing to every paper within a 100-mile radius.

Yes, isn't it amazing? When someone sends such a letter, it basically advertises that he/she is lazy. Oh boy, a lazy journalist, what every hiring editor is looking for.

That’s a serious mistake. You’ve probably blown off opportunities to hire some very good people for no reason other than your unwillingness to take a more active role in the hiring and recruiting process. You can’t wait for the perfect job candidates to walk into your cubicle all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and “eager to hit the ground running,” as so many job ads seem to demand. So what if an applicant didn’t research your paper extensively before sending you a résumé? So what if they mailed identical résumés to a hundred other papers? They’re telling you: “Hi, this is who I am. These are my qualifications. I’m available. Tell me why I should want to work for you. Your move.”


(Edited to insert missing word.)

I'll take a pass on anyone who can't be bothered to read a job ad and know what my paper does.

Experience has taught me to avoid jobs where the bosses don’t put any effort into active recruiting. For one thing, the staff will be skewed heavily toward ass-kissing schmoes, and that's a dreadful work environment. For another, the boss’s work ethic toward recruiting will most likely carry over to all other aspects of the workplace.

Perhaps I was just lucky, but the best job prospects I encountered in the newspaper biz were from managers at desirable papers who approached me without my having submitted an application. Putting up a help-wanted ad and winnowing the respondents based on how desperately they want the job doesn't cut it. Just my opinion, of course.

We all select people we think are worth recruiting. Check out the AME or copy chief topic if you're interested.

I don't recruit particularly actively, mostly because my work ethic toward my job doesn't leave much time for it, and yet I have never hired a single ass-kissing schmoe. What am I doing wrong?

It's a long leap between a job applicant saying he really wants to work for a paper and ass kissing.

There's a paper I love. I would never work there because I don't want to live there. But if I applied, I wouldn't hesitate to let them know how much I love the paper. It's the paper I love, not the hiring editor.

My new policy: All prospective bosses must submit at least three references from former subordinates in order to make the short list of people I might consider working for.

I actually check out bosses this way when I consider a job. But your policy doesn't preclude ass kissers who will BS you.

SeaRaven wrote:


Um, I'm sorry, but you seem to be reading things that aren't there in what I originally wrote. I never said I expected anyone to "research [my] paper extensively" but I do expect them to at least know things such as: how often we publish and our correct name. It'd be nice if they knew who our parent company is (it's one click or less to find that out on our Web site and easily found in the print edition), but that's more for their benefit than mine.

And when they are responding to a specific ad, I don't think it's too much to ask that they read and understand the entire ad first.

As for mass-mailed resumes, the kind I'm referring to are usually from people with barely any journalism experience, even of the college- or high-school paper kind, and often not even any study of the subject. Many just have some notion that they want to write, and that's all. And then they don't even write a well-written cover letter or send any writing samples, so on what basis am I supposed to judge their suitability for the position?

But believe me, if a prospect is promising and has sent a mass-mailed resume, I don't reject them out of hand. I can't afford to.

And from what did you infer that I don't actively recruit, or that I'm unwilling to? Just asking.

One thing that may be feeding our disconnect here is that I was thinking of reporter applicants (since those were the positions I most recently hired for), and most likely you were thinking of copy editing applicants. Entirely different kettle of fish.

Jessica, I screen copy editors and see similar issues.