Evening Of Scenes Proposal Form: Fill & Download for Free

tl;dr: Yes there is a bias against the unemployed, and many employers and job sites expressly allow the unemployed to be automatically disqualified. A secondary reason is that it's too expensive for most companies to post jobs, so contrary to popular belief, most open jobs aren't necessarily posted. Read the full version for a thorough analysis, suggested alternative strategies to minimize this problem, and our proposed solution.PROBLEM 1: BIAS AGAINST UNEMPLOYED JOB SEEKERSThe short answer to your question is because, yes, there is a bias against unemployed people. To paraphrase one of my econ professors from UCLA on the first day of classes one quarter (but please try to read this slowly, with the intonation of a 1950s- or 1960s-era news anchor, if you know what I mean: it's how he spoke, and helps you imagine the comic effect it had in our lecture hall):Remember: it is always easier to find a job when you have a job. It is exactly like dating: it is always easier to find a new girl when you have a girlfriend. Nobody wants to date you if you are single, and nobody wants to hire you if you are jobless.Never mind that the guys in the class died laughing while the girls gasped in horror, Prof was right. On both counts. Come on, guys: you know you always get more attention when you've got a girlfriend than when you're single; and girls, you know it always seems like you're more drawn to a guy who turns out to be taken than one who is single. It's just the weird ways we humans are programmed, I suppose.And so it is with employers too, apparently: in July 2011, we commented on a Huffington Post article (Employers Still Ruling Out Jobless Applicants: Report) in our blog, noting thatEmployers are only willing to consider job seekers that are currently employed but looking for a change of scene. But that's a bit like offering a Big Mac to someone who just finished a 16 ounce filet mignon and a glass of merlot. It just doesn't make any sense. (Unemployment is permanent: how employers are explicitly discriminating against the unemployed)Then, just one month later, we cited a Yahoo News story that Monster.com was explicitly discriminating against unemployed job seekers:Yahoo News just reported that liberal advocacy group change.org is pressuring Monster to reverse its policy and disallow employers from categorically denying unemployed job seekers from applying to jobs. (Monster asked to stop discriminating against unemployed, avert job market paradox)First, we tried to rationalize this "terribly tasteless move" leading to so "absurdly paradoxical" a result, if only to understand what was going on:It's interesting to consider the motivation behind this obviously controversial issue as surely Monster and other sites that have allowed employers' discriminatory practices must have foreseen the inevitable public outcry at such policies. After eliminating all other plausible explanations, the only likely possibility is a desperate attempt to minimize "résumé spam," the Biblical torrent of job applications submitted by desperate, unemployed job seekers to every open position on the planet. Presumably, by limiting job positions to only those job seekers presently employed and merely looking for a change of scene, employers would be solicited by arguably less-desperate job seekers who would therefore be more selective in their job applications for future positions. And by receiving a less desperate flood of applications submitted en masse, it is conceivable that the end result would be more, better, and faster job placement and benefit all members. (Monster asked to stop discriminating against unemployed, avert job market paradox)Having failed miserably in our attempt to find any socially sound rationale behind this abhorrent behavior, we concluded that...this [justification] tragically misses the point and tries to solve the problem of today's inefficient job markets by producing the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The answer -- obviously -- isn't to limit the unemployed from seeking new employment, but rather to more systematically filter and better match these job seekers with the best opportunties for their skills.... (Monster asked to stop discriminating against unemployed, avert job market paradox)Judging by Monster's response to the criticism, however, it is likely such policies are here to stay[1]:After The Lookout reported last month that the New York Times had found numerous ads discriminating against the unemployed on Monster and other job sites, Monster announced via Twitter that it "strongly oppose[s] discriminating vs. the unemployed." But it declined to say it would ban the practice, and in a followup statement released last week[2], the company said it's the responsibility of employers to decide what to say in their postings. (Monster.com urged to ban ‘jobless need not apply’ ads)So the short of it is, yes, there is tremendous bias against the unemployed, just as there's a subconscious aversion to dating someone who seems perpetually undesired by others. But whether this is an example of tasteless corporate strategy or fundamental failings with our frail human emotion (read: misplaced biases), and whether such innate human impulses are right or wrong misses the point entirely:The problem is inefficient matching between job seekers and relevant jobs, not that the unemployed are -- obviously -- looking for jobs in the first place.(By the way, if you're interested to read more on this topic, Business Insider asked me to write an expansion to our blog posts cited above, and in September 2011 they published this story that I wrote: Why Not Hiring Unemployed Jobs Seekers Is Stupid. Give it a read if you'd like, I think you'll find it quite interesting, and let me know what you think!)PROBLEM 2: PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE JOB POSTING COSTSThe other critically huge problem -- but tragically often overlooked -- is that it's simply too expensive for most companies to post most of their jobs: $50 to $500 per job posting for 30 days is absurd. Who comes up with these numbers, anyway? The point is that most jobs aren't necessarily even posted; this hugely limits the number of (seemingly) available positions. This problem is not helped by our sensationalist media claiming a dearth of job openings. It's simply not true.WHY ARE JOB SEEKERS BEING MATCHED WITH THE WRONG JOBS?So the question becomes, why are job seekers being matched with the wrong jobs? What, exactly, is this aforementioned "résumé spam?"The answer is simple, and briefly mentioned above: job seekers today have no disincentives against applying to every open job on the planet. In fact, they have a (seemingly) compelling reason to do so: cast a wider net, increase your chances for landing more jobs. At first blush, this seems like sound reasoning.Except it isn't. Not even slightly. First, it's exhausting. Applying to a job takes time (and as we all know, time is money). Time is stressful. Applying to many jobs takes a lot of time (and money) and is exponentially more stressful still.But that's not the bad part. The bad part is that once you apply to all 1,947 jobs (today; never mind the other 2,038 jobs you've compiled for tomorrow), you then have to sit there and wait. And wait some more. Sound familiar? Remember back in high school calling the "cutest girl in your class" only to get her voicemail, and thinking how manly you would seem if you actually left a message, only to then spend the rest of your day pacing back and forth, waiting for her call, and counting down the minutes to the day you can try and call her back again, making sure not to violate the "three days minimum" rule, even on the second, third, and n+1th attempts?Yeah. That's kind of how job hunting is today. It's agonizing. And applying to every job on the planet just compounds the time (money), stress, and agony.Second, it's an awful idea simply because by casting such a wide net, you actually end up increasing the likelihood of overlooking genuinely good matches.And finally, it's just bad form: word gets around (especially in certain industries) and if you're constantly applying for jobs for which you aren't genuinely qualified, this could eventually backfire in a very big way.So be honest, save time (money), reduce stress, and quit with the résumé spam already!SOME GREAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIESFortunately, there are some great alternative strategies to keep in mind to work around this absurd and unfortunate paradox:LinkedIn. Make sure your LinkedIn profile (and résumé) is up to dateAccuracy. Make sure that your credentials are accurately listed -- try to avoid padding your skill sets and experience as much as possibleSelective. Most importantly, stop applying en masse to every single job posting you find: be selective, and apply only to those jobs for which you think you are a genuinely good fit; no this will not increase your chances of landing work faster, but it will reduce your application workload and stress levels during this burdensome time in your lifeWould you hire you? Ask yourself whether you would hire yourself for the job to which you're applying, and be honest!Skiing test. Not sure whether you're being honest? Apply the skiing test: you're a green (beginner) skier, and in front of you is a double-black diamond (super-duper expert / you will die if you aren't experienced enough) ... are you actually good enough to go down that double-black? Use the same thought process for applying to jobs: are you actually good enough for that job?Network. network, network network: use your friends and existing networks to hook you up!OUR PROPOSED SOLUTIONSUltimately, the best solution for everyone would be to just totally reverse the entire job market process, which, by the way, would be a very welcome thing indeed: after all, I've often said that if any other marketplace were as inefficient as the job market, we wouldn't even call it a market!Reversing the job market would effectively morph today's crippled job market into a veritable Shangri-La of employment and talent by automatically pushing job seekers to the most relevant jobs for their particular skills without the need for job applications at all.Yeah, that would be pretty awesome. Fortunately, we're already on top of it with Venturocket.____________[1] If anyone has any news to the contrary, please let us know![2] Originally at http://www.monsterthinking.com/2011/08/08/monster-speaks-out-against-employment-discrimination/ but now just a giant 404 "page not found" error]

This incident took place when I was traveling to Delhi. The train departs in the evening and reach its destination next morning.My Father has a habit of making it sure that I am at the railway station at least 45 minutes early. As the train originates from my place it arrives around half an hour early. So there I was waiting for the train to move when I saw a girl walk in after a few minutes I boarded the train and asked a guy if he could exchange his seat with her as she had a side upper seat. The guy rejected the proposal for exchange.Fast forward to around 2 a.mI can't sleep in a train so I my phone came to rescue, the girl was awake in her seat (having a conversation on the cellphone) and was in my clear site. A guy passed through walking towards the washroom when there was a jerk from the train (typical Indian train feature) and the guy lost his balance. In order to save himself from falling he held the nearest rod which to his bad luck was the rod provided on the seat of that girl (side upper). All this happened within a few seconds.The guy moved ahead but then what we heard was an angry voice accusing the guy that he groped her. She started bad mouthing and created a scene which made everyone to wake up. The people who were on the near vicinity woke up and without a second gave the verdict that the guy was at guilty (the dumb people didn't even know what had happened). One of the uncle took it too far and asked the attendant to call the RPF in order to Lodge a complaint.I was enjoying the scene but then it struck me, what if I was the guy who was being accused. After all I knew he was innocent for I saw it all. When I went ahead to clear the misconception I was accused of aiding the culprit and that I was his friend. Now even I was an accused.The only thing that saved us was the lie that the girl told, according to her she was sleeping when the guy groped her. But I saw her talking on the cellphone which was a proof that she was not sleeping. On confrontation and making it clear to her that I've seen everything that happened she herself asked all the uncles to leave the matter.This was by far the worst sexism I've ever seen. Just because it was a girl accusing the guy people were ready to lodge a complaint without even hearing anything that the guy had to say.People just assume, a girl is always the one who is being wrongly treated not the other way round.P.S. He was the same guy who rejected her proposal to exchange his lower berth for her side upper. ( I think this incident had something to do with it).

The most Indian thing(s) ever is none but THE INDIAN DAILY SOAPS AND SERIALS. I guess, I don’t need to mention the points that would follow but still, as an honest and dutiful Quoran, it’s my responsibility to explain and justify my answer.SCENE 1: Love Proposal AcceptanceACTUAL CASEHe: I love youShe: I love you, too(A hug or a kiss, at max)INDIAN SERIAL(3 hours of staring each other, could be even more and then….)He: I love you(Air starts blowing at 53.987… km/hr)(A soothing background song starts playing(Rain fall starts almost instantaneously)(Thunder and lightning are mandatory for this scene)(The nearby temple bells also resonate with the song)(The Heroine starts crying and being an ideal would be bahoo uttering the word “love” is against her ideologies)She: ……(dumb)(And she would hug him tightly, NO KISSES)SCENE 2: Arrival of a News(Good or Bad-It’s more dramatic if bad XD)ACTUAL CASE (Let’s take a bad news)Speaker one: Hello, come soon to XYZ Hospital, ABC met an accident.Relative: What!(And is bound to keep the phone and rush to the hospital as soon as possible, wihout wasting a moment)INDIAN SERIALSSpeaker one: Hello…….He…Hello……..Hello…..(after 10 minutes of creating suspense), ABC met an accident !Before any injury or accident which is going to happen with the character his/her photo frame will fell off from the wall and would be broken by itself.Thunder -Dhoom Dhaam, Lightning, Storm !!!!Dum tana nana nana Dum tana nana nana …. !Temple bells once again, without resonance thoughThe phone will fall from the listener’s handAngular projection of the listener from up, down, left profile, right profile and finally front profile will be shown.Small tear drops will start rolling down taking the form of a riverIf the lead character’s mother will receive the phone she will get unconscious.He/She will start crying out and after 30 minutes of sobbing will realise that he has to go to the hospitalAnd the most important part is, the listener doesn’t need to know the name of the hospital. He/She is taken to the hospital bed in the next scene directlyLastly there probably will be a small temple in the hospital where when usually the mother cry for her child again the bells will ring in another temple far away from that place and he/she will be revivedSCENE 3: A CRIME INVESTIGATION SCENELet the image speak XDS.B.^~^Edit 1: Suggested by DrashtiOn the arrival of the Bad news, the Diya extinguishes, if there is a temple nearbyEdit 2: Suggested by JoseAnd you waste a whole week listening to the tunes of thunder and temple bells to switch over to what happens next.Edit 3: Suggested by Vansh(Before the phone drops)Kya…Kya…Kya…!!!PS: I'm not sure whether ACP P*****N uses Fleming's left or right hand rule XD