Help Wanted Ads: "Unemployed People Not Considered".

[Andy9o8 0]

It's things like this that leave you shaking your head....

Quote

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 illegal if 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."

I generally don't wish unemployment on anyone, but I think I might make an exception for those who follow this type of policy - then let them live with it.

[kelpdiver 2]

makes you wonder what the turnover rate is like at these companies. The employee who can be easily lured away from his current position is one who could be lured away again. Or more pessimistically, the one who is willing to take a chance on a new company (and give up any seniority status) may be fearful of being laid off anyway, so he's not any better than the ones they're refusing to consider.

[kallend 1,651]

How about Irish?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

On first pass it looks bad but there was an opeining for a janitor position at the local schools here last year. Something like 1500 applicants for the 1 position. Totally unmanageable to be expected to go through 1500 interviews.

So what's the knock on the unemployed? I would imagine an employer thinking that someone who's been unemployed for longer than 2-3 months isn't motivated enough to solve that problem by doing something lesser than what he/she was doing. Wht the hell...we have illegals for that.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jgoose71 0]

Would "Day laborer" be considered employment?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[nigel99 150]

It is very difficult because while I fully symathise with un-employeed people, without exception everyone that I have hired as a business owner who has been un-employeed has been a lemon.

While not an "official" policy we now tend to prefer currently employeed people - unfortunately it is a simple fact of life that companies tend to retain the cream of the crop so if you are recruiting for excellence it skews your requirements.

You can't measure turnover (in a small business) as a measure of happiness - we've had a high turnover but I simply refuse to "carry" people who think a paycheck is a "right" regardless of their contribution. We are slowly building a core of high quality individuals - it takes time and unfortunately an interview doesn't really tell you half as much as you need to know.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

A simple statement such as "Applicants must be prepared to explain any gaps in their employment record" should suffice.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

While not an "official" policy we now tend to prefer currently employeed people - unfortunately it is a simple fact of life that companies tend to retain the cream of the crop so if you are recruiting for excellence it skews your requirements.

Tend to is the problem. My company was just acquired and they are not keeping the cream of the crop. If so, they'd be firing themselves, not telling all of my people on the West coast they need to either move to Delaware or Singapore or leave.

Quote

You can't measure turnover (in a small business) as a measure of happiness - we've had a high turnover but I simply refuse to "carry" people who think a paycheck is a "right" regardless of their contribution. We are slowly building a core of high quality individuals - it takes time and unfortunately an interview doesn't really tell you half as much as you need to know.

Your voluntary turnover (as opposed to those you kick out because they aren't cutting it) says quite a lot about the company. And it's expensive to the company.

Short term contract to hire (3-6 months) is one way to address your issue.

[quade 3]

Of course, that that point companies also would need to shut the fuck up about welfare, healthcare and other social issues.

If they're never going to hire the unemployed, they doom the economy. If companies aren't going to be part of the solution, they don't get to complain about the consequences like higher taxes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Southern_Man 0]

They will hire the employed first. Once there are fewer employed people willing to leave jobs or those employed people are demanding too much salary to leave their current job then employers will hire unemployed people. Simple supply and demand.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[champu 1]

Quote

Of course, that that point companies also would need to shut the fuck up about welfare, healthcare and other social issues.

If they're never going to hire the unemployed, they doom the economy. If companies aren't going to be part of the solution, they don't get to complain about the consequences like higher taxes.

I think this is an interesting example of how the information age is slowly but surely adding more and more weight to our shoulders and will most likely be a component of our collapse. Kinda like how it only takes one idiot for warning labels to start showing up on a product, it only takes one news article for people to get up in arms about something. The problem is that regulations that offended people create, much like warning labels, never seem to go away.

Don't get me wrong, I think having a strict "unemployed need not apply" policy is a bad idea both for the company and for the economy, but this article appears to reference 3-4 (3 if the Sony/Ericsson thing really was a mistake) anecdotal instances of this happening across the country and you're off talking about justifying higher taxes and welfare programs.

[muff528 3]

So.... an employed person is hired by the company that hires only currently employed people. Wouldn't that likely open a position at the company that just lost an employee? Also, that practice may limit that company's access to talent which may, in the long run, give an edge to a competitor that does not use those restrictive hiring preferences. I say let the companies make their own policies and then live or die by them. This also goes for "discriminatory" hiring practices in the private sector. These policies will eventually lead to the demise of those companies, thereby allowing businesses that do not follow these practices to prevail in the marketplace. I think the climate is becoming right to allow companies to openly discriminate as they wish and then suffer any consequences meted out by their customers. I think the general population is becoming more aware of who the people are that they are dealing with and are becoming less and less tolerant of companies that are discriminatory or are otherwise acting irresponsibly. .......Just sayin'

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

So.... an employed person is hired by the company that hires only currently employed people. Wouldn't that likely open a position at the company that just lost an employee? Also, that practice may limit that company's access to talent which may, in the long run, give an edge to a competitor that does not use those restrictive hiring preferences. I say let the companies make their own policies and then live or die by them. This also goes for "discriminatory" hiring practices in the private sector. These policies will eventually lead to the demise of those companies, thereby allowing businesses that do not follow these practices to prevail in the marketplace. I think the climate is becoming right to allow companies to openly discriminate as they wish and then suffer any consequences meted out by their customers. I think the general population is becoming more aware of who the people are that they are dealing with and are becoming less and less tolerant of companies that are discriminatory or are otherwise acting irresponsibly. .......Just sayin'

Sounds great in theory, however, in today's climate of bail outs and companies being to big to fail which has allowed the government to pick winners and losers, what happens when a government protected company takes these policies?

I agree, a company should be allowed to live and die by its choices. The problem is if that company has enough lobbyists, it no longer has to worry about that.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Quote

While not an "official" policy we now tend to prefer currently employeed people - unfortunately it is a simple fact of life that companies tend to retain the cream of the crop so if you are recruiting for excellence it skews your requirements.

Tend to is the problem. My company was just acquired and they are not keeping the cream of the crop. If so, they'd be firing themselves, not telling all of my people on the West coast they need to either move to Delaware or Singapore or leave.

Quote

You can't measure turnover (in a small business) as a measure of happiness - we've had a high turnover but I simply refuse to "carry" people who think a paycheck is a "right" regardless of their contribution. We are slowly building a core of high quality individuals - it takes time and unfortunately an interview doesn't really tell you half as much as you need to know.

Your voluntary turnover (as opposed to those you kick out because they aren't cutting it) says quite a lot about the company. And it's expensive to the company.

Short term contract to hire (3-6 months) is one way to address your issue.

Totally agree and short term contracts is EXACTLY the model that we have adopted. After 3 months we either offer full time or simply don't renew.

On the issue of your company I know that I am making HUGE generalisations here and we are on opposite sides of the world - but a friends company went bust recently he and his top engineers were employed within the week, the weaker members are still un-employed 4 months later.

Lastly Harvard business review just had an article on pretty much exactly this topic.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Simple supply and demand.

Yes, except that supply and demand is only "simple" in certain situations.

When you are talking about trading shares of Microsoft, supply and demand is simple.

When you're talking about people, it's never simple.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Simple supply and demand.

Yes, except that supply and demand is only "simple" in certain situations.

When you are talking about trading shares of Microsoft, supply and demand is simple.

When you're talking about people, it's never simple.

I guess that is a matter of opinion.

People are simple.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

They will hire the employed first. Once there are fewer employed people willing to leave jobs or those employed people are demanding too much salary to leave their current job then employers will hire unemployed people. Simple supply and demand.

Employers will only hire unemployed people if they feel that the marginal profit they expect to realize from hiring those people is positive. There are costs associated with bringing people on board--even if they are paid zero or the minimum wage--so the net effect on the bottom line can sometimes be negative if the wrong people are brought on board.

If employers feel--whether fairly or because of unfair prejudices--that hiring the unemployed would result in the business losing money no matter how low their wages--then they'll never hire such people no matter how low the wages get.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

most of those costs/risk exist regardless of the prior employment status of the person. The question at hand for this thread is does the unemployed actually represent greater risk?

In aggregate, the answer is likely yes, but the variance between the two groups is huge.