Unemployed need not apply!

[WolfeMacleod]

Wow. Isn't this "employment discrimination?" This kinda crap should be against the law. This only propgates the issues!




Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'

Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month? Bad news: Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants.

In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL." When asked about the ad, a spokeswoman said, "This was a mistake, and once it was noticed it was removed."

Ads asking the unemployed not to apply are easy to find. A Craigslist ad for assistant restaurant managers in Edgewater, N.J. specifies, "Must be currently employed." Another job posting for a tax manager at an unnamed "top 25 CPA firm" in New York City contains the same line in all caps.

A company's choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.

"In the current economy, where millions of people have lost their jobs through absolutely no fault of their own, I find it beyond unconscionable that any employer would not consider unemployed workers for current job openings," she said. "Not only are these employers short-sighted in their search for the best qualified workers, but they are clearly not good corporate citizens of the communities in which they work. Increasingly, politicians and policy makers are trying to blame the unemployed for their condition, and to see this shameful propaganda trickle down to hiring decisions is truly sad and despicable."

There is no law prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed, though advocates said the practice could be illegalif it had a "disparate impact" on minority groups.

Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose home state of Michigan has a 14 percent unemployment rate, was particularly disappointed to hear about the ads.

"While I appreciate that many employers are facing unprecedented competition for job openings, to close the door on such a large population of potential employees is shortsighted," he said. "Being unemployed is not a choice many workers choose to make. I would hope that companies that are discriminating against the unemployed will take into consideration that this choice is only further contributing to long-term unemployment in our country."

[jyl]

Disgusting. Not illegal. HR people really are the lowest form of life.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jyl

disgusting. Not illegal. Hr people really are the lowest form of life.

+1

[Dave L]

HR = Not Human, rarely a Resource

I think the best candidate should be hired regardless of race, disability or employment status. I have interviewed a number of unemployed people and some do come across as desperate and will take anything, only to leave when something better comes along. I have also hired a couple of people who were unemployed and turned out to be very good employees.

[desertt5]

Couldn't they hire an unemployed person for a little less money? This could save the company money and give the guy a job at the same time. I would think a company, only looking at their profit, would be all over hiring people for a little less.

Could lead to a higher turnover rate though.

[Danimal16]

Learn very early that HR is management and accountable to management. They will not and are not obligated to do anything for the employees other than keep management out of trouble. And yes Human Resources is an Oxymoron, not human and not a resource.

[sammyg2]

It may not be a good PR but it is their right and it makes sense. They don't OWE anyone anything.

Think about it. When a company downsizes, do they lay off their best people? Of course not. They typically let go the people they can do without.
That pollutes the unemployed field.
There are plenty of good, quality, productive people in the unemployment lines but there are even more people there who are unemployed because of performance or personal issues.

An HR department is reponsible for screening prospective employees in an effort to get the best possible people. That aint easy.
In a market like today's where there are thousands of applicants for even the most basic job, it is a daunting task to try and weed through al those applications. Thier strategy, while distasteful, is probably very practical and effective.
Those who have had to go through the hiring process and screen applicants will understand.
People lying on their applications, people lying during interviews, people saying they's never been convicted when their police record shows three felony convictions, people applying for a job that handles finances when their personal credit rating is as bad as one can possibly get, etc.

Like I said before, the company doesn't owe anyone anything.

EDIT: Dave L hit on a very important point above: unemployed people can be desperate and willing to take any job no matter what. As soon as something better comes along, boom they are gone.

A huge mistake in business is hiring someone to do a job they are not really suited for. It rarely works out. So if you hire a marketing guy to do a maintenance job, he won't be happy, he wont be motivated, he probably won't be sucessfull.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I know several firm owners who do not necessarily lay off the most "expendible" employees - they lay off the most expensive ones regardless of who that leaves them with. This is a debate among managers - what is the most effective way to target layoffs.

There is a very real business incentive to shed the people commanding the highest salaries and retain the cheapest people, not necessarily to shed the least productive and keep the most experienced/productive ones. Yes, a lot of times it's seen as an opportunity to do housecleaning, but not always. I've sat in on a couple of these discussions in management meetings - they're very eye-opening.

Remember that the goal of layoffs (in a recession) is to SAVE MONEY, not to INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY. These are mutually exclusive more often than you might think. At the end of the day you have to pay to get/retain good talent - there's no way around it. And in a recession a lot of times the companies simply aren't willing to pay up to get or keep the good people, as counter-intuitive as that might seem at first glance.

YMMV.

[jyl]

I've observed that who gets laid off is more often due to the trends/financials of their particular part of the company, or internal politics/who is and isn't kissing ass, than to their own performance. Maybe 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3.

On the flip side, the people who are looking to jump ship are doing so for a reason. In my experience it is more often a "good" reason, but sometimes a potentially "bad" reason - don't work well w/ others, been passed over, see the handwriting on the wall. Maybe 2/3, 1/3.

The odds don't, in my view, clearly favor the currently employed applicants. I'm sure this varies by industry and era.