Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unemployed people need not apply.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unemployed people need not apply.

    Chris Isidore, senior writer, On Wednesday June 16, 2010, 4:26 am EDT

    The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.

    Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.

    "I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."

    Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

    That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.

    After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.

    Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.

    But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.

    "Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.

    She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.

    "They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.

    It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.

    "Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."

    Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.

    Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.

    "It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them."

    Have you had trouble even applying for a job because you are out of work? If so e-mail us here to tell us your story.
    Unemployed people are screwed in applying to some companies.

    I think this is stupid. This is not going to help our country's economy recover, and the companies that practice this exclusion in hiring may be missing out on high quality applicants.
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

  • #2
    Synhronicity I was just reading coments on this on the Citizen Renegade blog.
    Seems the mancesion is going to last and the 7 million boys don't have much to live for in the short term.
    Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
    The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
    The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm constantly getting calls from recruiters while I have a job.

      Hot ****
      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

      Comment


      • #4
        It's like women, right, Heraclitus? They only want you when you're taken. Otherwise, you're not worthy of them.
        "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
        "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Albert Speer View Post
          It's like women, right, Heraclitus? They only want you when you're taken. Otherwise, you're not worthy of them.
          Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
          The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
          The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Me on another site

            The companies that are doing this are offering better terms of employment than their targets are currently receiving -- they have to be, or it would never work. The employees they are "stealing" are already above average, which means the companies they are stolen from must do more to replace them -- or risk losing business because they no longer run as efficiently. They must either find an equivalent candidate to cover the job, or find two or more people to cover the same job that one person did.

            Long term, this actually helps the employment situation.
            .
            No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

            Comment


            • #7
              The housing situation is killing job mobility. For young proffesionals without property this is not an issue. However, for those that have property and are willing to relocate assuming they can off load their property, the risk of property sitting on the market for long periods of time is a huge disincentive for taking a new offer from a new company.
              "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

              “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

              Comment


              • #8

                The companies that are doing this are offering better terms of employment than their targets are currently receiving -- they have to be, or it would never work. The employees they are "stealing" are already above average, which means the companies they are stolen from must do more to replace them -- or risk losing business because they no longer run as efficiently. They must either find an equivalent candidate to cover the job, or find two or more people to cover the same job that one person did.

                Long term, this actually helps the employment situation.
                I can almost agree with this if it's your direct competition that you're stealing from but on the other side of the coin, there are many highly qualified unemployed people that could come in and do two peoples job, so i can't totally agree with this philosophy.
                It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                Comment


                • #9
                  yes, by ignoring umemployed people you're cutting yourself off from a massive pool of talent.
                  "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                  "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The assumption here seems to be that someone must be unemployed for a reason (ie- they didn't cut the mustard) but that is never always necessarily so.

                    It's interesting that if they wanted to cut down the pool of applicants, they choose to disqualify the unemployed instead of the employed (who will generally want to give 2 week notices, will require more money to lure away, etc.). You'd think the companies would rather have a stronger bargaining position when hiring.
                    "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                    "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                      yes, by ignoring umemployed people you're cutting yourself off from a massive pool of talent.
                      True. I have heard a number of stories lately where rather than hire truly qualified people from the outside at what would amount to bargain rates conisdering the current market company has resorted to peter principle promotion from within strategies.
                      "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                      “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Isn't it more normal for firms to just hire recruiters that look at the full pool -- those employed and those who aren't?

                        That's been my experience.
                        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                          yes, by ignoring umemployed people you're cutting yourself off from a massive pool of talent.
                          I do not disagree with that.
                          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Prince Asher View Post
                            Isn't it more normal for firms to just hire recruiters that look at the full pool -- those employed and those who aren't?

                            That's been my experience.
                            If it makes it that far. Many times the internal loser candidates have to be considered first and then only if the case is clear that the folks inside are incompetent does one go to the outside via an HR approved path. Point being in these times companies should be looking to upgrade their talent on the cheap at every instance.
                            "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                            “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Albert Speer View Post
                              The assumption here seems to be that someone must be unemployed for a reason (ie- they didn't cut the mustard) but that is never always necessarily so.

                              It's interesting that if they wanted to cut down the pool of applicants, they choose to disqualify the unemployed instead of the employed (who will generally want to give 2 week notices, will require more money to lure away, etc.). You'd think the companies would rather have a stronger bargaining position when hiring.
                              Yeah, I've adjusted what I was offering based on circumstances and gotten the company some bargains. And it's even better in the long run because you have more room for increases to further motivate.
                              It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                              RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X