Jobless Discrimination? When Firms Won't Even Consider Hiring Anyone Unemployed

[High_Gravity]

Jobless Discrimination? When Firms Won't Even Consider Hiring Anyone Unemployed

When Sony Ericsson needed new workers after it relocated its U.S. headquarters to Atlanta last year, its recruiters told one particular group of applicants not to bother. "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all," one online job listing said.

The cell-phone giant later said the listing, which produced a media uproar, had been a mistake. But other companies continue to refuse to even consider the unemployed for jobs — a harsh catch-22 at a time when long-term joblessness is at its highest level in decades.

Refusing to hire people on the basis of race, religion, age or disability — among other categories — is illegal. But companies that turn away jobless people as a group are generally not breaking the law — at least for now.

Job seekers have long known, of course, that it's easier to land a job when you are still working. There are no hard data on discrimination against the unemployed. But there have been reports from across the country of companies' making clear in job listings that they are not interested in people who are out of work. Employment experts say other companies have policies of hiring only people with jobs — but do not publicly acknowledge their bias.

At an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing this year, Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, declared that "excluding the unemployed" is "becoming business as usual." Owens testified about a 55-year-old California woman who had applied for a job as a software-systems engineer. The recruiter for the position was enthusiastic until she learned that the woman had been out of work for six months. At that point, she told the woman she could not forward her résumé to the hiring company.

The apparent uptick in such incidents couldn't come at a worse time for the unemployed. The Great Recession has produced an unusually large number of long-term jobless. Forty percent of the nation's unemployed — some 4.4 million people — have been out of work for a year or more, the highest level since World War II. The long-term unemployed have far more difficulty finding work than people who have left the workforce more recently. The problem is worst for workers over 50, who often face age discrimination as well.

Read more: When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed for Jobs - TIME

 

[rightwinger]

I will usually hire someone who already has a job over someone who is unemployed.

Less risk

 

[High_Gravity]

I will usually hire someone who already has a job over someone who is unemployed.

Less risk

What risk? alot of the times people are unemployed because the company they work for shut down, not their fault.

 

[zzzz]

Being unemployed indicates to the employer that you have issues. They just do not want to deal with people that may have issues with previous employers.

Being over 50 is an issue, being a convicted dope user is an issue, just like having long hair or a other appearance issues.

So college graduates have to go out and take minimum wage jobs to show they are employable. A lot of this has to do with the rise of the employment agencies that companies are using today. Using temporary labor agencies and such allow the companies to use employees without paying for unemployment or health insurance. The gate keepers are almost impossible to get around if something like being unemployed is on your record. They create a class of permanently unemployed people.

 

[High_Gravity]

Being unemployed indicates to the employer that you have issues. They just do not want to deal with people that may have issues with previous employers.
Being over 50 is an issue, being a convicted dope user is an issue, just like having long hair or a other appearance issues.

So college graduates have to go out and take minimum wage jobs to show they are employable. A lot of this has to do with the rise of the employment agencies that companies are using today. Using temporary labor agencies and such allow the companies to use employees without paying for unemployment or health insurance. The gate keepers are almost impossible to get around if something like being unemployed is on your record. They create a class of permanently unemployed people.

I just don't understand, I lost my job in Virginia because the company I worked for shut down, not because I did anything bad or had had issues, this kind of profiling is just as bad as racism, if you want to see if the person had issues I am sure the previous supervisor at the old job would be more than happy to tell you.

 

[zzzz]

Thats the way companies are now. Your are not an individual you are a looked at as a group. Its not fair but thats the information age.

 

[High_Gravity]

Thats the way companies are now. Your are not an individual you are a looked at as a group. Its not fair but thats the information age.

Thats terrible, I feel sorry for the unemployed folks out there, alot of them may never find a decent job again.

 

[rightwinger]

I will usually hire someone who already has a job over someone who is unemployed.

Less risk

What risk? alot of the times people are unemployed because the company they work for shut down, not their fault.

In this employment environment, I would be more willing to consider someone who is unemployed if they have an otherwise stable employment record.

However, hiring someone who is unemployed is always a bigger risk. The "lost my job in a downsizing" is a catchall for you were first in line of unnecessary or undesirable workers.

 

[High_Gravity]

I will usually hire someone who already has a job over someone who is unemployed.

Less risk

What risk? alot of the times people are unemployed because the company they work for shut down, not their fault.

In this employment environment, I would be more willing to consider someone who is unemployed if they have an otherwise stable employment record.

However, hiring someone who is unemployed is always a bigger risk. The "lost my job in a downsizing" is a catchall for you were first in line of unnecessary or undesirable workers.

I understand that but if you called the employees old company for a reference they would be more than willing to tell you if the guy was a shit bird or not.

 

[martybegan]

I will usually hire someone who already has a job over someone who is unemployed.

Less risk

What risk? alot of the times people are unemployed because the company they work for shut down, not their fault.

In this employment environment, I would be more willing to consider someone who is unemployed if they have an otherwise stable employment record.

However, hiring someone who is unemployed is always a bigger risk. The "lost my job in a downsizing" is a catchall for you were first in line of unnecessary or undesirable workers.

It also depends on the size of the company. Large companies with extensive HR departments should have no issue with looking at people who are currently out of work. Thats what the HR department is there for. It looks almost like laziness when they just look at currently employed people

For smaller buisnesses, where management does the hiring I can see why they would use currently being employed as a form of screening, however by limiting your talent pool you are actually hurting your chances of finding a good person for the position. An unemployed person, especially one let go through layoffs/shutdown has a much stronger motivation to

A) work thier ass off once employed again
B) take lower pay for the same position.

 

[High_Gravity]

What risk? alot of the times people are unemployed because the company they work for shut down, not their fault.

In this employment environment, I would be more willing to consider someone who is unemployed if they have an otherwise stable employment record.

However, hiring someone who is unemployed is always a bigger risk. The "lost my job in a downsizing" is a catchall for you were first in line of unnecessary or undesirable workers.

It also depends on the size of the company. Large companies with extensive HR departments should have no issue with looking at people who are currently out of work. Thats what the HR department is there for. It looks almost like laziness when they just look at currently employed people

For smaller buisnesses, where management does the hiring I can see why they would use currently being employed as a form of screening, however by limiting your talent pool you are actually hurting your chances of finding a good person for the position. An unemployed person, especially one let go through layoffs/shutdown has a much stronger motivation to

A) work thier ass off once employed again
B) take lower pay for the same position.

Exactly, I was in the same position.

 

[Publius1787]

Jobless Discrimination? When Firms Won't Even Consider Hiring Anyone Unemployed

When Sony Ericsson needed new workers after it relocated its U.S. headquarters to Atlanta last year, its recruiters told one particular group of applicants not to bother. "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all," one online job listing said.

The cell-phone giant later said the listing, which produced a media uproar, had been a mistake. But other companies continue to refuse to even consider the unemployed for jobs — a harsh catch-22 at a time when long-term joblessness is at its highest level in decades.

Refusing to hire people on the basis of race, religion, age or disability — among other categories — is illegal. But companies that turn away jobless people as a group are generally not breaking the law — at least for now.

Job seekers have long known, of course, that it's easier to land a job when you are still working. There are no hard data on discrimination against the unemployed. But there have been reports from across the country of companies' making clear in job listings that they are not interested in people who are out of work. Employment experts say other companies have policies of hiring only people with jobs — but do not publicly acknowledge their bias.

At an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing this year, Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, declared that "excluding the unemployed" is "becoming business as usual." Owens testified about a 55-year-old California woman who had applied for a job as a software-systems engineer. The recruiter for the position was enthusiastic until she learned that the woman had been out of work for six months. At that point, she told the woman she could not forward her résumé to the hiring company.

The apparent uptick in such incidents couldn't come at a worse time for the unemployed. The Great Recession has produced an unusually large number of long-term jobless. Forty percent of the nation's unemployed — some 4.4 million people — have been out of work for a year or more, the highest level since World War II. The long-term unemployed have far more difficulty finding work than people who have left the workforce more recently. The problem is worst for workers over 50, who often face age discrimination as well.

Read more: When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed for Jobs - TIME

Thats like people who bitch about "wealth descrimination" or "racial descrimination" when the bank wont give a home loan to someone who cant pay it back. And then when they get the loan and default they bitch about "predatory lending". Sorry. unemployment descrimination is the equivilant of saying "job skill descrimination" or "work ethic descrimination". Were not going to add that crap to the descrimination list as an excuse to give people stuff they havent earned or to make others pay for their risks and life choices.

 

[High_Gravity]

Jobless Discrimination? When Firms Won't Even Consider Hiring Anyone Unemployed

When Sony Ericsson needed new workers after it relocated its U.S. headquarters to Atlanta last year, its recruiters told one particular group of applicants not to bother. "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all," one online job listing said.

The cell-phone giant later said the listing, which produced a media uproar, had been a mistake. But other companies continue to refuse to even consider the unemployed for jobs — a harsh catch-22 at a time when long-term joblessness is at its highest level in decades.

Refusing to hire people on the basis of race, religion, age or disability — among other categories — is illegal. But companies that turn away jobless people as a group are generally not breaking the law — at least for now.

Job seekers have long known, of course, that it's easier to land a job when you are still working. There are no hard data on discrimination against the unemployed. But there have been reports from across the country of companies' making clear in job listings that they are not interested in people who are out of work. Employment experts say other companies have policies of hiring only people with jobs — but do not publicly acknowledge their bias.

At an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing this year, Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, declared that "excluding the unemployed" is "becoming business as usual." Owens testified about a 55-year-old California woman who had applied for a job as a software-systems engineer. The recruiter for the position was enthusiastic until she learned that the woman had been out of work for six months. At that point, she told the woman she could not forward her résumé to the hiring company.

The apparent uptick in such incidents couldn't come at a worse time for the unemployed. The Great Recession has produced an unusually large number of long-term jobless. Forty percent of the nation's unemployed — some 4.4 million people — have been out of work for a year or more, the highest level since World War II. The long-term unemployed have far more difficulty finding work than people who have left the workforce more recently. The problem is worst for workers over 50, who often face age discrimination as well.

Read more: When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed for Jobs - TIME

Thats like people who bitch about "wealth descrimination" or "racial descrimination" when the bank wont give a home loan to someone who cant pay it back. And then when they get the loan and default they bitch about "predatory lending". Sorry. unemployment descrimination is the equivilant of saying "job skill descrimination" or "work ethic descrimination". Were not going to add that crap to the descrimination list as an excuse to give people stuff they havent earned or to make others pay for their risks and life choices.

Huh? I don't follow you, I don't see the comparison between this issue and people not paying back banks.

 

[expat_panama]

...this kind of profiling is just as bad as racism...

Just like nobody buys from a store where the help are whining a 'customer's always wrong' attitude, no employer is ever going to buy labor from an applicant who talks racism/profiling.

We buy from stores that do their homework and figure out what we want before they honk a salespitch at us. Same thing when employers hire people who find out what the company's looking for and walk in ready to prove they're everything on the list --including being employed. Anyone can be self-employed. If you need to show payment receipts you can donate a $1,000 to a church to pay you $1,000 for your company's carpentry/cleaning services/daycare/mechanic work.

Oh, if you find out that $300 of the non-existent $1,000 have to go to self-employment taxes then you find paying clients before the tax-bill is due. Life it good. It's hard but if it were too easy it wouldn't be any fun.

 

[Publius1787]

Jobless Discrimination? When Firms Won't Even Consider Hiring Anyone Unemployed

Read more: When Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed for Jobs - TIME

Thats like people who bitch about "wealth descrimination" or "racial descrimination" when the bank wont give a home loan to someone who cant pay it back. And then when they get the loan and default they bitch about "predatory lending". Sorry. unemployment descrimination is the equivilant of saying "job skill descrimination" or "work ethic descrimination". Were not going to add that crap to the descrimination list as an excuse to give people stuff they havent earned or to make others pay for their risks and life choices.

Huh? I don't follow you, I don't see the comparison between this issue and people not paying back banks.

The point is that there is a descrimination for everything. And the banks refered to stuff like the accusation of "redlining" in Chicago Where Obama and ACORN sued Citi Bank on the bascis of descrimination for not giving home loans in an area where the property value was droping, violence rate was high, and people had little income. When people want to get something done they use the term "descrimination" to get the political blood flowing. In order to pass a rediculous liberty snatching law there is usually an alegged victem and there is no better way to cry victemhood than the word "descrimination". We have racial descrimination, wealth descrimination, gender descrimination, unemployment descrimination, homosexual descrimination, pre existing disease descrimination, and lets make up a few more shall we? If you refuse to hire a man because of his lack of education or job skill we should call it education/ skill descrimination. If you cant pay for your dvd at the electronics stor we should call it income descrimination. If I wipe my ass with two ply toilet paper lets call it mono ply descrimination. If you want to go after someone or something in order to force an unnatural action you simpily accuse them of some form of descrimination and that will bring cries of outrage and protest and perhaps something in the realm of a law will get done. I'm tired of the overuse of the word descrimination. Look how your article laments that unemployment descrimination is perfectly legal as if some crime had occured. Its just another way to suggest outlawing a good business descision in order to artificially give someone something that they did not earn and are not entitled to.


Oh, and the fact that I spelled discrimination wrong each and every time in this thread you could say I'm guilty of spelling discrimination.

 

[Publius1787]

Being unemployed indicates to the employer that you have issues. They just do not want to deal with people that may have issues with previous employers.
Being over 50 is an issue, being a convicted dope user is an issue, just like having long hair or a other appearance issues.

So college graduates have to go out and take minimum wage jobs to show they are employable. A lot of this has to do with the rise of the employment agencies that companies are using today. Using temporary labor agencies and such allow the companies to use employees without paying for unemployment or health insurance. The gate keepers are almost impossible to get around if something like being unemployed is on your record. They create a class of permanently unemployed people.

I just don't understand, I lost my job in Virginia because the company I worked for shut down, not because I did anything bad or had had issues, this kind of profiling is just as bad as racism, if you want to see if the person had issues I am sure the previous supervisor at the old job would be more than happy to tell you.

Just as bad as racism? Not even close. In fact, its not bad at all. But what is hurting the unemployed is those who are just rideing the long term unemployment gravy train. This causes the employer to shun the long term unemployed. And the fact that when your on unemployment the state does absolutly nothing to verify that you are actually looking for a job other than filing a 5 question report or somethimes a list of places you applied for of which they will never check. There is massive fraud among the unemployed right now and its giving the honest worker a bad name.

 

[High_Gravity]

Being unemployed indicates to the employer that you have issues. They just do not want to deal with people that may have issues with previous employers.
Being over 50 is an issue, being a convicted dope user is an issue, just like having long hair or a other appearance issues.

So college graduates have to go out and take minimum wage jobs to show they are employable. A lot of this has to do with the rise of the employment agencies that companies are using today. Using temporary labor agencies and such allow the companies to use employees without paying for unemployment or health insurance. The gate keepers are almost impossible to get around if something like being unemployed is on your record. They create a class of permanently unemployed people.

I just don't understand, I lost my job in Virginia because the company I worked for shut down, not because I did anything bad or had had issues, this kind of profiling is just as bad as racism, if you want to see if the person had issues I am sure the previous supervisor at the old job would be more than happy to tell you.

Just as bad as racism? Not even close. In fact, its not bad at all. But what is hurting the unemployed is those who are just rideing the long term unemployment gravy train. This causes the employer to shun the long term unemployed. And the fact that when your on unemployment the state does absolutly nothing to verify that you are actually looking for a job other than filing a 5 question report or somethimes a list of places you applied for of which they will never check. There is massive fraud among the unemployed right now and its giving the honest worker a bad name.

Unemployment only lasts so long, mine expired after a year in Virginia although I found a job in 6 months, I still don't feel this is right if employees are all going to take this kind of attitude and discriminate against the unemployed none of these folks are going to find jobs, I have to disagree on this. I guess once you have been unemployed you look at this issue from a different view, you guys are making unemployed people sound like crack addicts on the streets.

 

[High_Gravity]

Thats like people who bitch about "wealth descrimination" or "racial descrimination" when the bank wont give a home loan to someone who cant pay it back. And then when they get the loan and default they bitch about "predatory lending". Sorry. unemployment descrimination is the equivilant of saying "job skill descrimination" or "work ethic descrimination". Were not going to add that crap to the descrimination list as an excuse to give people stuff they havent earned or to make others pay for their risks and life choices.

Huh? I don't follow you, I don't see the comparison between this issue and people not paying back banks.

The point is that there is a descrimination for everything. And the banks refered to stuff like the accusation of "redlining" in Chicago Where Obama and ACORN sued Citi Bank on the bascis of descrimination for not giving home loans in an area where the property value was droping, violence rate was high, and people had little income. When people want to get something done they use the term "descrimination" to get the political blood flowing. In order to pass a rediculous liberty snatching law there is usually an alegged victem and there is no better way to cry victemhood than the word "descrimination". We have racial descrimination, wealth descrimination, gender descrimination, unemployment descrimination, homosexual descrimination, pre existing disease descrimination, and lets make up a few more shall we? If you refuse to hire a man because of his lack of education or job skill we should call it education/ skill descrimination. If you cant pay for your dvd at the electronics stor we should call it income descrimination. If I wipe my ass with two ply toilet paper lets call it mono ply descrimination. If you want to go after someone or something in order to force an unnatural action you simpily accuse them of some form of descrimination and that will bring cries of outrage and protest and perhaps something in the realm of a law will get done. I'm tired of the overuse of the word descrimination. Look how your article laments that unemployment descrimination is perfectly legal as if some crime had occured. Its just another way to suggest outlawing a good business descision in order to artificially give someone something that they did not earn and are not entitled to.


Oh, and the fact that I spelled discrimination wrong each and every time in this thread you could say I'm guilty of spelling discrimination.

You might now want to hear it but if a company is not hiring people because they are unemployed it is discrimination, point blank period.

 

[rightwinger]

Huh? I don't follow you, I don't see the comparison between this issue and people not paying back banks.

The point is that there is a descrimination for everything. And the banks refered to stuff like the accusation of "redlining" in Chicago Where Obama and ACORN sued Citi Bank on the bascis of descrimination for not giving home loans in an area where the property value was droping, violence rate was high, and people had little income. When people want to get something done they use the term "descrimination" to get the political blood flowing. In order to pass a rediculous liberty snatching law there is usually an alegged victem and there is no better way to cry victemhood than the word "descrimination". We have racial descrimination, wealth descrimination, gender descrimination, unemployment descrimination, homosexual descrimination, pre existing disease descrimination, and lets make up a few more shall we? If you refuse to hire a man because of his lack of education or job skill we should call it education/ skill descrimination. If you cant pay for your dvd at the electronics stor we should call it income descrimination. If I wipe my ass with two ply toilet paper lets call it mono ply descrimination. If you want to go after someone or something in order to force an unnatural action you simpily accuse them of some form of descrimination and that will bring cries of outrage and protest and perhaps something in the realm of a law will get done. I'm tired of the overuse of the word descrimination. Look how your article laments that unemployment descrimination is perfectly legal as if some crime had occured. Its just another way to suggest outlawing a good business descision in order to artificially give someone something that they did not earn and are not entitled to.


Oh, and the fact that I spelled discrimination wrong each and every time in this thread you could say I'm guilty of spelling discrimination.

You might now want to hear it but if a company is not hiring people because they are unemployed it is discrimination, point blank period.

You are always allowed to discriminate in who you hire, you just can't discriminate against a protected class. The unemployed are not a protected class. You need to show that your discriminating factors are related to the job

In looking at a potential hire you look at the big picture. With me, I like to hire the best suited rather than the best qualified. I am lazy, I want someone who will quickly pick up the job and stay for a long time. Less work for me, the better.

Given the current economy, unemployment does not have its former stigma. But it is still a consideration in who you hire

 

[High_Gravity]

The point is that there is a descrimination for everything. And the banks refered to stuff like the accusation of "redlining" in Chicago Where Obama and ACORN sued Citi Bank on the bascis of descrimination for not giving home loans in an area where the property value was droping, violence rate was high, and people had little income. When people want to get something done they use the term "descrimination" to get the political blood flowing. In order to pass a rediculous liberty snatching law there is usually an alegged victem and there is no better way to cry victemhood than the word "descrimination". We have racial descrimination, wealth descrimination, gender descrimination, unemployment descrimination, homosexual descrimination, pre existing disease descrimination, and lets make up a few more shall we? If you refuse to hire a man because of his lack of education or job skill we should call it education/ skill descrimination. If you cant pay for your dvd at the electronics stor we should call it income descrimination. If I wipe my ass with two ply toilet paper lets call it mono ply descrimination. If you want to go after someone or something in order to force an unnatural action you simpily accuse them of some form of descrimination and that will bring cries of outrage and protest and perhaps something in the realm of a law will get done. I'm tired of the overuse of the word descrimination. Look how your article laments that unemployment descrimination is perfectly legal as if some crime had occured. Its just another way to suggest outlawing a good business descision in order to artificially give someone something that they did not earn and are not entitled to.


Oh, and the fact that I spelled discrimination wrong each and every time in this thread you could say I'm guilty of spelling discrimination.

You might now want to hear it but if a company is not hiring people because they are unemployed it is discrimination, point blank period.

You are always allowed to discriminate in who you hire, you just can't discriminate against a protected class. The unemployed are not a protected class. You need to show that your discriminating factors are related to the job

In looking at a potential hire you look at the big picture. With me, I like to hire the best suited rather than the best qualified. I am lazy, I want someone who will quickly pick up the job and stay for a long time. Less work for me, the better.

Given the current economy, unemployment does not have its former stigma. But it is still a consideration in who you hire

I can understand where your coming from but alot of unemployed people would appreciate the job more than someone who is currently working and will do the work for even less money because unemployment is not forever, that runs out after a year in most states. I feel strongly about it because I was in that boat myself.