If he's got an interview and hasn't provided them with a resume, there's a reason he has an interview. His foot is already in the door so you don't need to put those old skills to paper. I would keep the employment history as is and leave those skills he acquired in the past as a topic to discuss during the interview.

If he ends up having to send his resume out to other prospective employers, you could always add a small section after employment history to summarize some skills learned at past jobs.

Thanks dees. I never thought about that. Funny thing is he sent a resume in a very long time ago, more than a year ago for a different job. He didn't get an interview for that job. They must have saved his resume for a future position. He said the position he applied for was actually a lower position from the one he is interviewing for. It seems strange to me but I have heard that they are having problems filling positions in his line of work. Many of the younger generation does not like this line of work. I'm still going to update his resume though in case he decides to apply for something else.

You could have a section titled Relevant Experience, with subheads outlining his accomplishments in past employment without actually naming employers and dates. Here are some examples of subheads, but you would use your own depending on your husband's field.

Production/Engineering . . . Supervision . . . Quality Control

Production and Design . . . Marketing and Sales . . . Management

Account Relations . . . Direct Sales . . . Product Analysis . . . Promotion

Writing/Editing . . . Research . . . Project Management

I'm sure you get the idea. :-)

Double post, PC hiccup. Sorry

The continued existence or not of a past employer is irrelevant. A 50-year old person should have 25+ years of employment history to list and all past positions should be included.

Past employment demonstrates the nature and breadth of work experience. It's not a list of references to contact. That, if relevant or desired, goes at the end of the resume while work experience is near the top.

Good luck.

(PS - keep the formatting simple, too many people try to get fancy with resumes and the result can look very sloppy)

While I am currently in academics I have been extensively involved in recruitment for professional positions. I believe the one page resume thing is mostly a myth, unless you are going for entry level positions, however, that is neither here nor there. I often tell people who want to shorten their resume to carry a longer CV style resume with them and hand it to the interviewers. I strongly discourage trying to fit all of your previous experience into an interview, I would not be impressed by someone who used my questions to consistently highlight experiences I wasn't aware of when starting the interview. Handing them the C.V. has the added bonus of giving them a hard copy of "more reasons to consider me," after the interview is over.

He can always add a heading called Additional Skills and put his misc stuff there.

Be sure he takes an extra copy of the resume with him and that the company is not working off his previously submitted resume. A friend ran into trouble that way with the employer using an older version of the resume when the current one had some vitally important updates.

P.S. I wish him well!

I agree with bry911. I frequently interviewed job applicants in my career. A resume needs to be long enough to contain essential information without fluff or padding. 2-3 pages for a professional resume is not too long.

I always scanned resumes in advance and noted items to follow up during the interview.

I would begin each interview meeting with a few minutes of chit chat to start to establish a rapport for conversation. My next step would always be to focus on obvious time gaps and other bits of seemingly missing or otherwise incomplete information on the resume. As I recall, more often than not the REAL explanation for any information gaps was that items were intentionally left off because they were possibility or certainly unfavorable or uncomplimentary concerning the applicant. Put another way, to learn the real story, I found I needed to look for what wasn't on the resume, not what was. A limited job history often suggested the individual had been dismissed from prior positions and didn't want that to be learned from a followup.

Just wondering then, would you bother interviewing these people, or just toss aside?

I totally agree with dees1. When you get a million resumes, you know what you're looking for. Keywords. I even got to where I was looking for someone who was stable (not job jumping) but had NO experience. I figured out I wanted to train ground level employees for this position, my way. So you don't know what they're looking for, and you do. Put it in keyword type like Alisande has if you must list it. Short and sweet, 1 page.

Just wondering then, would you bother interviewing these people, or just toss aside?

The things that get you an interview are not necessarily the things that get you a job. We often interviewed people with unusual experiences but often unusual experiences simply ended up being weird people, sometimes, however, they ended up being real assets that we hired. There are certain experiences, references and resume items that are likely to trigger an interview. This is another reason that you shouldn't assume that employers are impressed with you enough to give you an interview - a better way to think of it is that they are intrigued enough with you to give you an interview.

Edit: As an example, I have extensive international experience - I have gotten interviews that I really shouldn't have because of that. I have once or twice had interviews for jobs that I realized during the interview, I was not even remotely qualified for, and the other applicants were far better candidates but my experience was "interesting."

I again agree with bry911. I did choose my words carefully in saying more often than not, as 52%/48% becomes more often than not. It was frequent, but not always, that the innocent data omission was not innocent or an oversight.

There are times that a quirky resume or a resume for a seemingly quirky person triggers an interest to pursue in person and they turn out to be great candidates. The opposite is true too, very often (again maybe more often than not), when you meet someone with a great resume, the 45 minute visit seems to last 3 hours and it's clear in 60 seconds that the person is not suitable for the job. Superficial judging? Sure, sometimes, but interviewing experience as with anything else leads to being able to see signs of problems and opportunities quickly. First impressions matter.

rob, maybe we're talking about different kinds of positions. In my field, a 1 page resume wouldn't cut it, except for entry-level college grads.

If you have a copy of the job description they are recruiting for, add a few specific keywords from the requirements into the resume. It isn't all about previous work experience, it's about having the specific requirements they are looking for. If you are applying for positions via e-mail or submitting resumes online customize each one for each position you are applying for, using words posted in the job description. Many recruiters now use search software to search for specific words in resumes that are sent via pdf. That way they can screen out hundreds of applications that don't match their criteria. For example, don't just say Microsoft Office, spell out Excel, Word, Powerpoint so those words pass through the screening filter. And good luck! Hope everything works out well for your husband.

I have hired loads of people, different levels and types of jobs have different resumes. My boss' "resume" is 118 pages long. But one still submits the one page resume for many many jobs. If you do it right, it'll generate interest. If you're really good at what you do, you'll be sought out anyhow. I speak from experience ;)

I don't think it's an either or. In a big stack of resumes, the cover and first/only page will be skimmed looking for an impression. For a professional or technical advanced position, lack of a multipage, in depth resume may indicate a lightweight applicant not even worth consideration. Resumes are not entertaining and people are looking for content that jumps out, rather than lots of words that make their eyes glaze over.

What I've gleaned from the advice given here:

Bring a new, updated resume to the interview, including all work experience and accounting for all gaps, including what was done during periods of unemployment related to education/work skills. Include a skills section that gives keywords and highlights what has been learned and mastered in previous employment. Keywords are important in digital resumes. Don't be afraid to sound interesting on paper, but be normal and easy to get along with in person.

So I just want to add that it is OK to have some small explainable employment gaps, I don't need, or want, to know that you worked in retail for a few months after your spouse took a big promotion that caused you to move, if that experience isn't relevant.

Remember materiality, bry. Material gaps is what I was referring to. A few months, even half a year, not material. Several years - yes.

I haven't had a job interview in 40 plus years, but I should think the resume is not that important at the meet-and-greet interview. He's already impressed them enough to get in the door, so I would bring a list of jobs with me and be prepared to hand it over. I don't understand why he is so reluctant to list the names of past employers. Is he afraid they would give bad references? Just curious...

Jwood52 - he is not worried about bad references at all. Some of the past employers do not even exist anymore. He wanted to include those because of the skills learned in those jobs.

He had his interview on Friday. He said it seemed to go well but now he waits. We both have a bit of apprehension with this job as we'll likely have to move. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. He could commute now or stay with a relative if needed.

Thanks all for your help. We ended up leaving the resume as is but he decided he's going to work on tweaking it before he applies for another job.

We no longer live in a world where a paper form of a resume is the first form touched. Electronic is the way of the present. Everything that Tally said above is correct. If one is responding to an electronic job posting, use key words from that posting in your resume. Programs do the weeding out of unqualified candidates - people don't. Always include a cover letter - if your resume makes the cut, the person who gets the resumes attached to an email uses the cover letter to beside the applicant can write. You'd be surprised how many people can't write at all. The skills are what is important - not the names of past employers. Hope all goes well for your husband.