The following email is real, though the names have been changed (for obvious reasons). It was sent to us by an HR professional and long-time reader, who tells us the applicant sought an accounting position. She says:
“This guy applied online on Friday, I emailed him Saturday to follow up and was going to phone screen him today until I noticed that he lives out of state. Given the volume of résumés we received from local candidates, I decided we’d go that route to expedite the process.”
As you will soon see, the candidate's response is a total and utter failure from the moment he begins with "High Susan," thereby presuming that his employer takes mind-altering substances on the job, to the bitter end of his rant-like plea for Congress to interrupt the email proceedings and mandate that he be hired.
It’s a goldmine for sticklers of grammar, spelling, and transitions into political ramblings, not to mention those who enjoy their comedy with slight undertones of jackass. And for any job-seekers out there looking to learn from mistakes, consider this Exhibit A in the file of What Not to Do.
I am disappointed to finally hear from you today (January 7th) that you are now reversing your interest in speaking with me concerning the Staff Accountant vacancy that you first emailed me about (and not vice versa) back on January 5th, due strictly upon the fact that I am not currently located in Pennsylvania. May I ask why you even emailed me to begin with on Saturday if you are practicing such legitimately discriminatory hiring conduct by only considering "local applicants", as my current address was plainly indicated on the top of the first page of my resume which I previously shared with you (makes no sense, at least in my mind, why you did that and giving me false hopes)?
Irregardless, based on the wording of the online job description to which I initially applied online several days ago, I currently possess all the necessary skills and work experiences, and would have been an ideal match for the opportunity because I have previously served in identical financial and general accounting / budgeting / financial analysis capacities for various mid to large size multi location publicly traded and privately owned companies where I accumulated directly relevant career and industry work experience for this vacancy, as well.
Therefore, I would like to state that it's unfortunate that Congress did not include certain tax incentives within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which was legislated in early 2009, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act which was passed in March, 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act which was passed in September, 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 which was passed in December, 2010, or any legislation in years 2011, 2012, or 2013 to date that would encourage U.S. businesses of all sizes and forms (i.e, from large publicly traded "Fortune 1000" corporations down to small privately held sole proprietorships as well as non-profit organizations and governmental bodies) to recruit new employees nationwide regardless of their current location. By allowing adjustments and / or credits against taxable income or some form of increased grant / government funding for hiring applicants outside of an entity's local commuting area, employers would truly be able to reap the rewards of selecting the "top talent" available in the national marketplace by realizing tax savings or increased funding from hiring non-locally, while at the same time allowing jobseekers (like myself) more equal footing with talent in employers' local markets. For jobseekers who currently live in smaller metropolitan (or even rural) areas, this type of legislation would be a "godsend" since there is essentially little to no opportunity in our local communities due to the currently high state unemployment rates.
Please accept my apologies if this sounds grandiose or contrite, but I thought I would take a moment in this email to "vent" my concerns with you. This is not the first, and I'm sure it won't be the last, position to which I've applied where I've been eliminated from consideration due solely upon my current geographic location. I'm sure that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of other American jobseekers have been experiencing this same dilemma for over five (5) years now due to the currently high state unemployment rates. Therefore, I will urge you to share my observations regarding this matter with other decision makers that might be within your network of both personal friends / acquaintances / family members and professional colleagues / co-workers (including the other direct hiring manager on this vacancy). Hopefully, if enough support is expressed, Congress will pass supplemental legislation to help prevent U.S. employers from exercising this discriminatory hiring practice in the future.
Susan, I would like to make you aware that U.S. employers should not be letting the geographic location of jobseekers be of any concern when making their hiring selections. Because unemployment rates in all 50 states have been at elevated levels now for over 5 years, the purpose of recruiting efforts should be on getting people all over the country back to work, and not just those who are currently in close proximity to the job locations. Please understand that as long as jobseekers are willing to pay for their own travel and moving expenses in order to accept remote opportunities (as I would have been for this vacancy because I have previously lived in Pennsylvania with relatives / friends still residing there, and, thus, have a sincere interest in permanently relocating back to the area), U.S. employers should not discriminate in favor of local applicants within their commuting areas who may be equally or less qualified.
Hence, I hope you will share my thoughts about further federal, state, and municipal government funding incentives with others you know who may, in the aggregate with others who I have contacted previously, be able to effect a solution to this legitimately discriminatory hiring dilemma prevalent in America today.
Certified Public Accountant (CPA)