Interesting post and one I disagree with... at least a little. While there are rules in resume submission that cross every boundary, (for example: Don't lie) the challenges in today's market require taking some risks. Every resume should be custom to a particular ad/job description.

The purpose of a resume is to get an interview and the best way to do that is to emphasis the experience relevant to the opportunity as it is advertised and using the language the job description uses to describe those skills. For example, if you have Scrum experience and an ad calls for “agile”, use the word “agile”. Given that something in excess of 70% of the applications turned in are loaded into some kind of electronic db, then searched for the desired skills, the most effective resume is going to be the one that describes the desired experience in the words the company understands. The recruiter for the above position is infinitely more likely to search for “agile experience” than “scrum experience”. Frankly, the difference between “blacklisted” and “irrelevant” isn’t meaningful.

If you have sent in 100 or 200 or 300 resumes with no response, then the threat of being blacklisted isn’t much of a threat. At that point, the goal is to create a resume that gets through the filters, while simultaneously finding personal connections to the hiring influence so your resume can land directly on their desk along with a personal reference. Being told in an ad to “not contact company directly” isn’t meaningful. I can give you lots of examples where contacting the hiring influence directly made the difference. Given that the odds without that contact are something worse that 100 to 1, telling someone to be respectful of the admonition is simply bad advice.

So if resume 1 describes one set of experience and resume 2 describes different experience, it’s because job description 1 has one set of requirements and job description 2 has a different set. Companies who blacklist applicants because of this won’t get the best candidates, because they can’t tell the difference between responsive candidates and lucky ones.

Steve Paul
www.notesfromthejobsearchseattle.blogspot.com

Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave.

Good points, Steve - I think your points hit the nail on the head more closely.

@Steve Paul - Good points, but what you're failing to recognize is the fact that employers do blacklist. Period. So if you've posted your resume too many times, regardless of how much the language matches the job description, you could just be out of luck with that employer. Even if your next resume "gets through the filters" you'll have an HR professional there that see's your name on the blacklist and you won't get a call anyway.

The real key, if you read Paul's articles regularly, is to avoid these systems all together and just network into a job. This is more true if your experience matches the job description really well. Better off connecting through LinkedIn or your personal connections that risk getting lost in the ATS!

Well, I had a comment but lost it because of the illegible letters you have to type. (Another great innovation). Recruiters are just plain dense and always seem to hire the wrong people. I had a temp who was so stupid, he got everything wrong and for six months I had to redo the job for him. I would rather have just done everything myself and I told my boss I did not need no stinkin help.

Don't worry though. The people like me who deserve jobs and don't get them because we are over 40 are beginning to lash out at all companies....not just the ones that kicked us to the curb. If another company has to pay for what my last employer did, it will even the score in the end. So watch out you don't get kicked to the curb yourself.

You left out one very prevalent reason for getting blacklisted; age discrimination. Do not think it doesn't exist. It's very much alive and well. Ask anyone over 55 who has been applying for positions for which they are perfectly qualified, only to find the employer has hired someone 25 years younger.

Anyone who thinks that blacklists don't exist are deluding themselves. In my experience, they are alive and well.

The biggest reason why people are blacklisted is not because a person is too old, but due to good old fashioned politics. I am a victim of that myself.

Here's my story - Nearly 15 years ago, I switched careers after a manager literally begged me to join his department knowing that I had no experience and would need some time to get acclimated to the field.

Instead of him giving me that chance, a month after I joined he threatened to fire me. By some miracle (or curse) I managed to stay on board and thought I managed to overcome this hurdle.

Approximately six months later, he quit (he was forced out actually) and was told to write performance evaluations - something he should not have been permitted to do. Instead of doing the honorable thing and say that I was a good employee (now I did not expect him to say I was "excellent" - after all I was still new), he slammed me and wrote that he should have fired me all along.

That in itself was traumatic enough, but when I discussed it with him, he told me that I shouldn't be distracted with the truth and he'd manipulate my scores if I was willing to shift scores around giving the impression that I was "mediocre" in places where I was excellent" and "below average" in places where I was "poor". The whole document was a total joke and he knew it. He demanded I sign it which I refused given his comments. Unfortunately, it still got placed in my personnel file.

When my next boss came on board, I thought I would be safe because he was one of the few who actually knew what was going on. However, once he read my file, he quickly changed his tune and immediately threatened to fire me as well. At that point, I couldn't be saved and had to leave.

While that is bad by itself, my former boss moved higher and higher at his other companies and shared with his colleagues how much he thought I was an idiot along the way.

Since my profession is very small, it was only a matter of time that the well would be tainted so badly that I could never find a job in my chosen field again.

To prove my point, I recently applied for a job at a company where I was more than qualified. The hiring manager liked me and things seemed to move smoothly. However, I couldn't manage to go to the next stage. Finally, I managed to get a hold of the hiring manager where he told me he did some casual research about me on his own where he stumbled into my "story" - but clearly, it was told from my former boss' perspective -- the one who stabbed me in the back.

I wish I had recourse because this truly is a case of being blacklisted and I know that if given a shot, I could do well somewhere.

What is a person to do?

It is amazing to me that nowadays that companies have to resort to blacklists and other underhanded mechanisms to keep people unemployed.

Finding a job is one of the top sources of stress that a person can have and sometimes people don't handle rejection as well as they could. Besides, the anger the candidate has usually cools down very quickly.

Now I understand if a potential employee threatens bodily harm on someone or something to that effect, that should be a very strong red flag. That not only warrants blacklisting by that company, but the police should be informed as well.

The facts are that the reasons mentioned above for blacklisting sound little more than petty excuses to exclude people from positions that could be great employees possibly in the future.

Think about this:
- A candidate who may not be qualified today for a position usually will find a job at another company. In cases like that, the individual could build the experience needed for that job which s/he is applying for later. Disregarding a candidate because they don't "qualify now" is shortsighted -- especially in cases where recruiters usually pursue candidates than the other way around.

- If a company actually did its due diligence and matched up a person's background against all listings instead of forcing them to apply to each individual one, there would be no need to apply 10 or 20 times. In fact, I have had many experiences where recruiters actively told me to resubmit my resume because the other positions I want were not being represented by her and either she was either too lazy to forward it to the right recruiter, she didn't know who it was, was not educated on the ATS system, etc. etc.

- More often than not, recruiters may know of the "big picture" needs that a company may need, but often don't know about contracts or other opportunities. I have managed to get many positions because I know that HR had no idea that I was being considered for such opportunities which I was subsequently hired for. Whether they were put in the loop or not is not my concern - that's their problem. Besides, every other person will tell you to apply for the jobs that "aren't there" since more often than not, the jobs that are listed are there because it is required of them, not because they are actually "real".

- There is a time and there is a place for badmouthing an employer no matter what you say. If you are in a small industry it is in my opinion perfectly reasonable for you to tell the hiring manager that you did not see eye to eye with him or did not share in the company's vision. That does not make you a bad candidate, it shows that you know you don't fit and want to find something else. You need to read between the lines and understand the frustration - is it due to the employee's own problems or because of a much larger problem. While yes there are employees who are problems, more often than not it is because s/he simply did not fit the company's culture. Creatives don't like being in environments where you have to wear a suit; type A personalities don't want to be in a company where it's know to be a "fun place to work" -- you never truly know what to expect until you come on board. Remember they are often trying to sell you on coming aboard as much as you are selling yourself.

- As much as employers don't want to hear it, more often than not, one of the key reasons why employees leave is because of money. If Company A offers you $x and Company B offers you 2*$x and both are good places to work, a company should expect that a person would go elsewhere. This is especially true in companies who have a reputation of being very large and very successful. I know that in my experience, I don't want to work for a company who works me like a dog, treats me like crap, does well because of my hard work and then pays me scraps. Sure, I can leave at any time, but why should I have to do that? This is where money comes into play. In this soft economy, people will be courted with money -- sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. You just have to understand that is the way it works and accept it.

- Phone screens by anyone but the hiring manager are often jokes. Recruiters rarely understand anything about the positions that they are looking to fill and pretending that they do only makes it a frustrating experience for both the recruiter and the candidate. I have been in many situations where a recruiter grilled me mercilessly for an hour and when I asked her a simple question she simply grunted and said "I dunno" -- if you expect us to do our homework, you should do yours otherwise postpone the conversation or give it to someone who can do it. You are wasting our time as well if you don't do that.

- If I reject a job offer, I have my reasons. It does not cost that much money to make a few reference checks and to do a background check on someone. If you are complaining that you have to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't be hiring anyone at all. Seriously, if a person is decent in her/his industry, then you have to expect that person will get multiple offers or knows what s/he wants. Dismissing a candidate because of this is shortsighted and wrong.

I know that companies do it all the time, but it is profiling and they have no business develing into anyones personal business. Simply justifying; saying it is appropriate or OK, is downright wrong: I don't care it it is 2011. This is all that bull that started with the movement of the 90's crap speciafically designed to intimidate and provide a new way to discriminate. Blacklisting should be flatly illegal.

"Companies spend a lot of time and money interviewing candidates and don't want candidates who are not decisive early on in the process."

How about companies who ask you to drive downtown, twice, tell you how much you fit the position, tell you they will call you EITHER WAY by the end of the following week and you never hear from them again?

This happened to me, a phone interview and 2 in-person interviews and I cannot get them to talk to me, after several calls. I understand companies spend a lot of money interviewing people, but I paid 20 bucks each day to park and I don't even get a courtesy call. Even when I called the person I interviewed with and left messages, I heard nothing back. Tell me, who should be blacklisted?

I have grown weary of bending to the corporate HR folks. They ask a question then immediately start typing your answer into their database, only occasionally giving you an "uh huh" or "yes, I see." They do not listen at all, never actually have a conversation with you, only gather information to make a decision at some other time.

Frankly, the model is broken, and broken bad. The example above is from a Fortune 500 company, never again..never again.

I think this post is just to scare candidates. It is the employer that should be afraid.
If an employes treats candidates unprofessionaly, expect Glassdoor reviews or, in nasty cases, complaintsboard posts with the employer's details, associations and Linkedin resumes.
After this is done, let's see if the employer finds a job.
Employers should realize that they they are just employees with very fragile careers and vunerable to the perception of others.
@EW
What's this about typing in databases?
I've never seen it. If someone did that, I'd walk out.

"Resume mismatch. If the resume you send an employer doesn't match the details found on your previous resumes you've submitted to the same company -- going back seven years -- you can get flagged in the ATS. Some companies reject your application at this point altogether, while other companies might require HR intervention."

According to the law, your resume is technically copyrighted. That is, when you apply for a position, your resume is owned by you. Retaining that resume in an electronic form is technically copyright infringement under federal law, along with identity theft.

I can think of many reasons why a resume might be different. Often times, applicants will omit information that might not be relevant to the position being applied for. Sometimes, there are variations of the same information. As an example, the name of your former employer might change, and in the new version, you might use the new name or the old name.

I personally shorten or remove anything that might conflict with the job being applied for. Those things can be discussed if necessary in interviews, or upon request.

I suggest that if you are applying for a job that you add a copyright notice to your resume, stating that "this document is copyrighted and may not be reproduced electronically or in any other format." "Reproducing this document which contains personal information shall constitute identity theft under state and federal law."

Most employers keep your resume until a few months after the position is filled, usually as a backup. However, they have no legal right to sell or aggregate your information in a database.

I'm more than sure I've been blacklisted by a US government agency because of a past whistle blowing action I was involved in. How can I prove it?