The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk

 

The unemployed need not apply.

 

That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

 

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

 

Unemployed workers have long suspected that the gaping holes on their résumés left them less attractive to employers. But with the country in the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, many had hoped employers would be more forgiving.

 

“I feel like I am being shunned by our entire society,” said Kelly Wiedemer, 45, an information technology operations analyst who said a recruiter had told her that despite her skill set she would be a “hard sell” because she had been out of work for more than six months.

 

This seems like a pretty terrible trend. I'd imagine there would have to be some way to incentivize businesses away from these sorts of policies.

The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk

 

 

 

This seems like a pretty terrible trend. I'd imagine there would have to be some way to incentivize businesses away from these sorts of policies.

 

I read somewhere that either a city or state is trying to pass legislation to make this an illegal practice.

I read somewhere that either a city or state is trying to pass legislation to make this an illegal practice.

I feel like that would be incredibly hard to enforce.

well it'd at least stop ads explicitly stating they don't want to hire the unemployed.

I read somewhere that either a city or state is trying to pass legislation to make this an illegal practice.

Like age discrimination, which still very much happens, they just dont TELL you that werent picked because of your age.

I read somewhere that either a city or state is trying to pass legislation to make this an illegal practice.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-...-191042168.html

I read somewhere that either a city or state is trying to pass legislation to make this an illegal practice.

City of Chicago is considering it.

 

It's not just morally disturbing, it is also business stupid in my view. For one, why limit your pool of potential employees like that? And for two, people who've been out of work longer will also be hungrier and more dedicated, all else equal. To me, I'd almost prefer the person unemployed, unless they are unemployed because they were terminated for cause.

 

City of Chicago is considering it.

 

It's not just morally disturbing, it is also business stupid in my view. For one, why limit your pool of potential employees like that? And for two, people who've been out of work longer will also be hungrier and more dedicated, all else equal. To me, I'd almost prefer the person unemployed, unless they are unemployed because they were terminated for cause.

 

Not to mention probably cheaper to hire.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-...-191042168.html

 

lol the comments on that article, I wonder how many people realize the "argument" they're making against this proposal applies equally to any anti-discrimination law.

Not to mention probably cheaper to hire.

Also true.

 

It's no secret that companies making record profits love depressed labor markets.

City of Chicago is considering it.

 

It's not just morally disturbing, it is also business stupid in my view. For one, why limit your pool of potential employees like that? And for two, people who've been out of work longer will also be hungrier and more dedicated, all else equal. To me, I'd almost prefer the person unemployed, unless they are unemployed because they were terminated for cause.

If it was the case that avoiding hiring the unemployed was a bad business decision...why would so many places be doing it? Either businesses are simply uniformly idiots who have no interest in all these benefits you're proposing, or excluding the unemployed gives them a lot of benefits which overwhelm the things you point out.

If it was the case that avoiding hiring the unemployed was a bad business decision...why would so many places be doing it? Either businesses are simply uniformly idiots who have no interest in all these benefits you're proposing, or excluding the unemployed gives them a lot of benefits which overwhelm the things you point out.

I wondered the same thing, and I honestly can't figure it out. Maybe someone can illustrate for me why the policy makes any sense.

 

I wondered the same thing, and I honestly can't figure it out. Maybe someone can illustrate for me why the policy makes any sense.

 

I just assumed that employers considered the unemployed as the bottom of the barrel.

I just assumed that employers considered the unemployed as the bottom of the barrel.

In that case, for the reasons I mentioned, they really are stupid. It also means that those companies have no confidence in their own recruiting and screening personnel and procedures to hire a good candidate.

 

I just assumed that employers considered the unemployed as the bottom of the barrel.

The other thing to remember...they're certainly not all "The bottom of the barrel" but when your pool of applicants is 375 applications, if the unemployed are more commonly the "Bottom of the barrel" than otherwise, you're going to save yourself a ton of trouble by just saying no to all of them. There'll still be plenty of qualified applicants amongst the employed.

In that case, for the reasons I mentioned, they really are stupid. It also means that those companies have no confidence in their own recruiting and screening personnel and procedures to hire a good candidate.

 

I'm trying to play devil's advocate here.

 

You get 500 resumes for 1 position to fill.

 

300 of the resumes are from people that are currently working, making their current employer more efficient and profitable...adding value.

 

200 resumes are from people who haven't worked in 2 years. How sharp are they after that time off? What skills have they learned during that time?

 

Not saying this is what they're thinking or that it's right but I bet it's part of their thought process.

I'm trying to play devil's advocate here.

 

You get 500 resumes for 1 position to fill.

 

300 of the resumes are from people that are currently working, making their current employer more efficient and profitable...adding value.

 

200 resumes are from people who haven't worked in 2 years. How sharp are they after that time off? What skills have they learned during that time?

 

Not saying this is what they're thinking or that it's right but I bet it's part of their thought process.

I like the specificity of my 375 applications better.

I like the specificity of my 375 applications better.

That number seems too unrealistic. It's all round numbers these days.

I see what you guys are saying, I just think it isn't the smart way to widdle down your pool.

 

I see what you guys are saying, I just think it isn't the smart way to widdle down your pool.

If it is "Somewhat effective", then why do they care?

I see what you guys are saying, I just think it isn't the smart way to widdle down your pool.

I don't disagree.

If it is "Somewhat effective", then why do they care?

Because you aren't getting the best candidates.

 

Some companies really don't care about that too much. I personally think that choosing the right people from the outset is something that most companies don't invest enough in.

 

When you have this many to sort through, going with someone who is currently employed saves time by having a solid reference. The references from former employers are basically crap now because of the various laws and potential law suits from negative information an employer can give. Additionally, if they are in the same industry they may bring with them current knowledge of what their old employer is doing. They may have fresh customer contacts. In the back of interviewers minds, who have little time and many applicants is why has the rest of the world passed on this person?

so much for being "job creators"