RÉSUMÉ

T’wi: You should let me look at your resume.

Zah: Haven’t I?

T’wi: Well that was a long time ago.

Zah: Well, if I recall, you were pleasantly surprised with what you found. No?

T’wi: Sure. But that was a different context. I’d like to see it honed to a specific job. To see how you're adjusting it in light of a given job ad.

Zah: But what are you saying? I think you’re suggesting that my unemployment status is strongly connected to an inability to compose a resume or meet the criteria on a job application or write a compelling, or just relevant, cover letter. And I think you know that isn’t what’s happening here.

T’wi: No. Not at all. I just think you might like another set of eyes.

Zah: I'm happy to run all my job applications passed you. But, again, why is now different? Why was your previous look insufficient? What has changed? What more are you bringing to the table this time?

T’wi: I just think you could use someone else looking at what you’re doing.

Zah: Well, I’ve shared my resume and cover letters with you and with Zandi, too. And you're aware of that.

T’wi: Okay.

Zah: Well, I think you should consider what you’re saying.

T’wi: What?

Zah: Uh, I mean, you know I've looked at many people's writing assignments for them, folks of all ages and levels of education, and written and edited my own undergrad and graduate thesis, and been given others' PhD dissertations to look at. And, and, and. And you know I've assisted in the interviewing and hiring of folks and done some of that myself for different things.

T'wi: Okay.

Zah: So, with that as context, you know there are only so many options here.

T'wi: Like what?

Zah: Well, are you saying that you would do something significantly differently than I would? In that case, why would the employer hire me and not you? Or, I guess, why would I submit something like that, something that I didn’t think of and that’s not me?

T’wi: Well—

Zah: Okay. Are you saying I'm not using common sense or following standard conventions: that I’m deviating so wildly from expectations that I’m making myself unemployable?

T’wi: That’s not it.

Zah: And, having seen my job application and had these conversations, you know that I’m already more discriminating and less likely to fudge or massage things than most people, even yourself. Right?

T’wi: Well—

Zah: You know that I’m allergic to 'fake it 'til you make it.'

T’wi: Sure—

Zah: So what does that mean? That means I’m applying to a narrower set of jobs more likely to be a better fit and less of a leap for an employer. That’s hugely significant here.

T’wi: Yeah, but—

Zah: And you know that, paired with that, I’m not narrowly focused on one type, or field, or level of employment. So you’re as aware as I am that I’ve applied to do consultant work and marketing, to help college and ELL students with their writing, to work in a marine biology lab, a bookstore, a sporting goods shop, to man a cash register and mop floors, do data entry, weigh sugar and flour and clean kitchen equipment, prop up some tents and take down signs, inside sales at a hardware store, teach outdoor education: the gamut.

T’wi: Well—

Zah: Or are you saying I’m not up with the latest trends and that that’s a critical factor?

T’wi: I’m just saying I’ve learned a lot in my new role that I didn’t know before.

Zah: But that's you. And you know I can Google best practices for cover letters and download sexy resume templates and the rest of it, just like you, right?

T’wi: No. That’s not it.

Zah: But you’ve seen the twenty-five resumes and cover letters I have on my computer. And you also know I’ve had twice as many jobs in five times as many fields as yourself. And you know I’ve applied to and been accepted to a bunch of colleges and universities, every one I’ve ever tried to get into, all of which had a more involved application process than the jobs I’m applying to. And you know that I have a far better grasp of my own volunteer, employment, and education history than anyone else.

T’wi: That's not it—

Zah: So are you saying you have secret information or skills? Why don’t you just divulge your secrets? Like, is it Times New Roman that unlocks the jobs? Is it removing the postal code from my address? Going with ‘utilized’ rather than ‘used’? Never employing the Oxford comma? What is it? Goddamn, I knew it, fuckin' 12-point TNR!

T’wi: No. I’m not saying any of that. I just think it would be good to have another set of eyes looking at the context and the job application. How could that hurt?

Zah: Well, you also know I’ve signed up with two different employment agencies. And that I post my resume on-line, like everyone else, on my website as well as multiple job and networking sites that enforce their own unique, standardized formatting. Right?

T’wi: That’s fine.

Zah: I mean, we can’t run a proper experiment, delivering a thousand resumes to the same employer, each with just one subtle tweak, to figure out what the winning factor is. But I’ve been effectively doing so, applying to every sort of job, including ones I definitely don’t want. And I try taking a different tack each time, depending on the job. Just like you and everyone else would.

T’wi: Okay.

Zah: Well, so, if you really want to help, just tell me what you would do differently, in advance, and what the intended outcome of those changes is and why. And then if I don't get a call-back or an interview or the job we can cross that factor off the list. I mean, I’ve applied to seven jobs just like yours, with the city and province and elsewhere — the difference with my application being that I have two degrees in applicable fields and a decade-worth of different jobs with relevant titles.

T’wi: Right. And you didn’t get to the next stage and I did.

Zah: And you think the problem there is my resume?

T’wi: Look, I know a woman in hiring. She says they just look for relevant keywords and pass everyone who follows the directions along to the next stage.

Zah: We know that isn’t true. We also know that if two decades ago they were getting four or 40 applicants they’re getting 400 or 4,000 today. And if that's true we can assume 300 of those are not completely absurd and easily disregarded. Or, I would be shocked to learn something different. What I’m offering here doesn’t come from nowhere. I watched a non-profit in Toronto explain to the media how they were offering an unpaid intern gig and how, in the ‘90s and ‘00s, they use to get a dozen high school seniors applying, but in recent years have been getting hundreds of applicants, half of whom have graduate degrees. So then—

T’wi: I’m just sharing what I was told.

Zah: And what is that?

T'wi: That, basically, everyone who applies goes through.

Zah: Right. And in seven applications I’ve never gone through. So I would wager she or yourself don’t have all the information. That was certain by my third failed application. So, given that, what are you actually saying?

T’wi: I’m just telling you what I know.

Zha: Well, okay, what are the options here?

T’wi: I don’t know.

Zah: I don’t think it’s radical to suggest they may be applying some additional level of discrimination upfront, rather than investing the time and resources into interviewing all those people. Right?

T'wi: They do that further along.

Zah: How does that make sense? They aren't hurting for applicants. And you might interview ten people, you’re not interviewing 400 or probably even 40?

T'wi: I don't know.

Zah: Well, you do. Why is what I'm proposing less preferable than assuming that my resume (which you’ve seen and is not in red, 34-point wingdings) is being interpreted as totally inappropriate and cast aside by this underling you know, who just "looks for keywords and passes them all along"?

T'wi: I'm just telling you what I was told.

Zah: Well, you’re saying that because I failed to copy and paste portions of the job ad directly into my cover letter, highlighting my ability to communicate technical or academic language and information to lay audiences but failing to append the jargon ‘knowledge translation’ or abbreviate that to ‘KT’ (and thereby highlighting my insider status), I didn’t pass through their most lenient initial screening process for their entry level positions — despite having more applicable experience and education than other candidates. What?

T'wi: Well, that's her job. And that's what she told me she does. That's all the information I have.

Zah: Consider just how radical your, and her, proposed and preferred version of reality is. It actually defies everything you know and have spelled out here. Why is it so much more radical to consider what could be occurring that doesn't violate everything you know?

T’wi: Well.

Zah: Well, I’ve been told by everyone I've spoken to, in different ways and at different times, that the problem is one or another, or every, aspect of my legally protected and immutable status. That’s a weird thing to be hit with over and over again, at dinner or over beers or on a phone call. I mean, what do they think they're saying? We agree that discrimination of this sort is illegal. Right? But we also acknowledge that this discrimination has become the primary fixation and function of hiring teams and HR departments, particularly in larger institutions: government, crown corporations, universities and colleges, and on. Right?

T’wi: Perhaps.

Zah: Well, I think this phenomenon is a little more than a rumour. No?

T’wi: Fine.

Zah: And surely there has to be consequences for that. Surely. And we've accepted those as the cost of doing business, or we would be doing something different. Right?

T'wi: I suppose.

Zah: Well, I think it's a little more than speculation. And the impacts have to be more than immaterial externalities. I mean, we’ve made this de facto law, haven’t we, by embedding policy of this nature across most of our institutions? So, what of that?

T'wi: I don't know.

Zah: You should ask your friend doing the hiring. And ask her what, out of the constellation of reasons for landing or failing to land a job, are the strongest reasons. I'd love to know her thoughts. I would submit that chance and bias (conscious or unconscious) would have to be the primary sources of jobs. What would you say?

T'wi: Sure.

Zah: I mean, I could be wrong but I think most folks I know, and certainly myself, have gotten jobs through some sort of connection or explicit nepotism. I mean, people tell me this all the time. “You just need to do more networking” or "Talk to my friend Coleen." I lump all that and more together under the label 'bias' not 'chance' or 'merit'.

T'wi: Okay.

Zah: And when that isn't at play, we all agree employers are wildly biased in their selection process. I mean, it doesn’t have to be that way. We could choose blindness or just a degree of blindness. But explicit and implicit bias in hiring makes the news all the time and is constantly shared across social media. So we all agree that as a society we’re doing nothing to eliminate bias.

T’wi: Yeah.

Zah: Right. But, to me, you’re preferring to elevate my personal stupidity (or desire for self-harm, maybe?) not to the level of chance or bias but far beyond, such that this is the only relevant factor and one that you yourself can easily address by scanning my resume and cover letter. That feels like a wild premise.

T’wi: You just like playing the victim.

Zah: I’m not the one ever bringing this up. I literally never mention it. Unemployment has the same status in my life that genital warts or chronic diarrhoea would. But it's true, I do believe you are trying to help. I think that's your intention. I think what I'm trying to tell you here is that it's landing more like a slap in the face. And I'm offering you the opportunity to explain how that's not happening, that I'm wrong, that it's actually a helping hand. And you're refusing. Or that's how it looks on my end.

T’wi: Look, you just like complaining.

Zah: Again, none of this is anything I ever bring up. If I’m sitting down to dinner with someone and they ask me how the job search is going, what am I supposed to say? I tend to offer some kind of funny anecdote. I almost always share something that's made me laugh, like applying to an “urgent” job posting (for a ten-hour-a-week, seasonal, minimum wage gig) and then not hearing back and forgetting about it entirely, only to get a “We’re writing to inform you another candidate was selected for this position” email some eight months later. Or I recount reading through job applications that offer no pay expectation but highlight "BENEFITS: parking, casual dress, overtime pay, reduced cost food." And we laugh and laugh. What's the better response?

T’wi: You just like being difficult. You just don’t want a job.

Zah: You know what? You're right. That's it.

T'wi: Well?

Zah: Well, you were unemployed for a whole year. And you know Dominik has been looking for work as long as I. And you know George and Khan just lost their seemingly secure jobs, ones their new mortgages and car payments depend upon. And your brother was just fired, too, right? I mean, you— I— I don't know why I'm defending myself.

T'wi: You just can't take criticism.

Zah: That could be so. But criticism is not made constructive by one's intention, on the encoding and packaging end, only by turning out to be so, manifest in the world on the receiving end. You know? And I guess I'm just asking you to offer something that you could, potentially, even remotely, be wrong about and not something immune to error.

T'wi: That's bullshit—

Zah: How so? I'm being told I've been catastrophically wrong over and over and over again. Isn't that your hypothesis? And I'm saying I don't think there's any evidence of that. But then you want to touch your magic wand to this and demonstrate just how wrong I've been. Again, with no evidence. And I'm resisting that, really as little as possible, until there's reason, any reason at all, to do otherwise.

T'wi: No. You're just doing what you do.

Zah: Well, surely that's in need and of value someplace. I you come across such a place, please give them my number.