No longer employable?

Online courses is missing the point. You want certification and courses and activities where you meet, network with people.

Ok, if by any chance you’re on the northside, pm me.

OP could it be something as obvious as being overqualified for the role? I was recruiting last year for a role that was fairly junior. The amount of applications I received where people had between 10 & 15 years of experience (just from looking at the employment history on CV) was crazy. We continued to advertise these roles and I think had an initial interview for 2 of those individuals but it was just clear that they would most likely get bored in the role & leave. So there was no point in hiring them.

I would agree with leaving online free courses to the side and maybe look at a paid development course in the area you work in. I know a few people who've done that to show that even though they weren't employed, they were still increasing their skill levels.

Came across this on panel. Maybe about a third the applicants were downsizing. The wanted to move out of high stress role, and/or high time commitments, or switch career and start over.

We've had a few posts in these forums about people wanted to move back on the career ladder. From the comments it seems organisation can't mentally process this. Tend to write off such candidates rather than embrace it.

An experienced person in lesser role can be invaluable. I think its a bit flawed to worry about them staying in a role long term when there is no job security or loyalty anymore.

That said I don't think that's what the OP is doing. I think if you a long time in a high value role that perhaps isn't valued the same way in other organisation it been be very hard to move laterally or even downward. Then throw some agisim and other such things and you can find yourself with no pigeon hole.

If a recruitment is getting a disparity between applicants and advert that's a different issue. Because that shouldn't happen.

Calling someone who's there 7 years "new" is irrational and impractical. If they do the same with apprentice and senior role titles and discordant salaries.

It's likely all these things are not unrelated. Perhaps for unintuitive but valid reasons.

I was assuming the OP isn't applying to the wrong role, wrong salary, constantly. I could be wrong.

People in this scenario should still be signing on for PRSI credits, even though they don't qualify for a benefit.

I don't know the current training eligibility rules for them - but it's worth asking.

Not to further derail the topic at hand but it's not that simple. Think of it like the title being "Financial Accountant". Now there are different responsibilities that a financial accountant might have and the level of those might depend on their experience. My level would be more on the reviewing the work done by other financial accountants but that's only because it's developed over time. A more junior financial accountant (one that's just qualified for example) would not have the experience to do that so they start with some of the preparation & work up. I've worked in a place with a flat structure before where everyone was given different titles which were variations of the same - continuing the example there was "Financial Accountant", "Senior Financial Accountant", "Principle Financial Accountant", "Senior Principle Financial Accountant". Realistically those titles meant nothing as we all did the same work just the people with more experience worked on the more complex areas.

Anyway I digress as I don't want to drag this off topic anymore so I'm not going to argue the naming convention of roles any further. My point is that if the OP is applying for roles where they are or could look overqualified to have something in their application that notes why they want to take what looks like a step down.

i've bene reading your thread and certainly the job market and candidate selection has changed for the worst since Covid.

Candidate competition has increased certainly in the IT sector beyond what we would have thought even 3-5 years ago. Assuming you are Irish born and bred ?? - what I have noticed is that non Irish candidates are being hired over Irish professionals and I am not being racist when I say that, it's just a fact and an elephant in the room in the job market. Non-Irish candidates are either based in Ireland or overseas.

For overseas candidates with no intentions of moving to Ireland they are being interviewed over Teams - once they secure the role, the company are happy for that employee / contractor to fly over from for example London or Manchester for office day just 1 day per month.

Employers don't care if they can attend the office for the required 1 or 2 days per week. But certainly it's a tough job market out there.

There's a lot going on in that.

From the IT forums there's a general trend of things of recruitment getting tighter. Especially for older more experienced staff. You can see that in the RTO mandates.

People these days have a lot of certifications and qualifications. Not unusual to see with a couple of degrees and a masters. They've probably done quite a few courses on presentation and interview skills as well.

I'm not saying you would get bored but if you are applying for roles that you may think you're CV would indicate you're overqualified for, you might need to change up some bits and include that you're looking "to go back to basics" or that you are looking to get more involved in the doing rather than the managing etc. One of my colleagues went from leading a function to working a level down in our place. He explained it both in the application and at interview that he'd ended up managing people more than doing the job he liked doing which was the reason for the perceived back step. He got the job & has been a great asset for a few years now.

While true, it's a pity that's the attitude. Very short sighted.

That might be so but I'm talking about the perception of the people who are looking through the applications. They could look at someone who has x number of years experience & think they will get bored in the role &, not wanting to have to go through recruitment again in a years time, would probably skip over it.

Also I wouldn't say that to any potential employers either. Saying that the job is just a way to make money etc. isn't what they want to hear. They want to hear that you're enthused by the sound of the company, the culture, it looks like an interesting role blah blah even if you're thinking that it's a means to an end.

Just on jobs being re-advertised. I've seen it happen a bit where someone is offered the role & initially accepts but then turns it down. So the company puts the job ad back up.

And yes you might not fit the role and that is why you weren't considered. But instead of focusing on what a company is doing (because they are entitled to put whoever they want in a role or keep advertising until they find the perfect fit), maybe focus on areas your own application could improve.

Would it be worth talking to a recruiter in the area you're in to get a better direction. I know some aren't great but I've found in the past the ones that are specialised in an area are pretty good. And they'll help tailor CVs etc for the particular role as opposed to it being generic. Are you up on LinkedIn? Because that is a massive way to get yourself noticed and have both companies and recruitment agents contact you.