Must Be Employed

[chanel]

"Must be employed."

Postings like this have captured the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the New Jersey state Legislature.

The issue revolves around whether or not the ads are discriminatory.

"It seems to be a neutral thing to say that someone must already be fully employed before they can apply for a job," says EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser. "If you look at the statistics though, you can see that this is going to affect far more minorities than white workers."

New Jersey lawmakers are addressing the issue. A statute, the first of its kind in the nation, was introduced last October that would fine companies for placing ads prohibiting the unemployed from applying.

It was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie in January. The governor declared that the one-page bill was "vague and confusing."

He also expressed concern that Jersey businesses are already over-regulated. The law should not be effective immediately, he advised. Companies need time to prepare.

N.J. Legislature, agency question job ads that limit based on employment history | NJ.com

If I had a dollar for every time I read in NJ.com "the first of its kind in the nation"...

Good idea?

 

[editec]

It's shocking that they are so blatent about descriminating against the unemployed.

I actually do understand why they might want to do that, but to announce it to the public?

That takes some chutzpa.

 

[JBeukema]

So, rather than people with open availability, they want people who already have obligations?

 

[Care4all]

i don't think the gvt has ground to stand on...they are not discriminating against the black population solely, but the unemployed population in full...

the unemployed are not a protected race, or religion, or gender etc....

and IF this was discrimination against the black race, the EXISTING DISCRIMINATION LAWS already on the books would cover it.

NOTE:
I vehemently DISAGREE with the companies/company advertising their opened positions in this manner....they are cutting down their opportunities to find the perfect people for their job openings.

It could be that they do not have the staff to cover all the unemployed that would have applied? I just don't know that it was due to the unemployed being black.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Must be employed."

Postings like this have captured the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the New Jersey state Legislature.

The issue revolves around whether or not the ads are discriminatory.

"It seems to be a neutral thing to say that someone must already be fully employed before they can apply for a job," says EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser. "If you look at the statistics though, you can see that this is going to affect far more minorities than white workers."

New Jersey lawmakers are addressing the issue. A statute, the first of its kind in the nation, was introduced last October that would fine companies for placing ads prohibiting the unemployed from applying.

It was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie in January. The governor declared that the one-page bill was "vague and confusing."

He also expressed concern that Jersey businesses are already over-regulated. The law should not be effective immediately, he advised. Companies need time to prepare.

N.J. Legislature, agency question job ads that limit based on employment history | NJ.com

If I had a dollar for every time I read in NJ.com "the first of its kind in the nation"...

Good idea?

This is one of those areas that isn't illegal, but it sucks. The business community now knows it can pick the creme de la creme from the work force. Fine. But don't shove it in the faces of those people who have been looking for work for months on end and who are fully qualified but for the demise of the businesses that laid them off.

The EEOC began its inquiry after a Sony Ericsson plant in Georgia placed a job notice specifying, "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all."

If I had seen that ad in the paper, I would have begun an all-out media blitz by way of letters to the editor suggesting a boycott of whatever product they're hawking and quoting that hateful qualification as the reason why.

 

[xsited1]

...

N.J. Legislature, agency question job ads that limit based on employment history | NJ.com

If I had a dollar for every time I read in NJ.com "the first of its kind in the nation"...

Good idea?

I stopped reading at "...this is going to affect far more minorities than white workers."

When the race card is played, I tune them out.

Companies should just take out "Must be employed" from their ads and screen the candidates before the on-site interview.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's no need to put a policy in print. Keep it quiet and avoid the scrutiny of meddling people who want to tell you how to run your business.

A company can take applications from everyone and then only pick from those who are currently employed.

DUH!

I just have to say it again:"It's not the business of the fucking government or anyone else for that matter who a business owner hires."

 

[MaggieMae]

...

N.J. Legislature, agency question job ads that limit based on employment history | NJ.com

If I had a dollar for every time I read in NJ.com "the first of its kind in the nation"...

Good idea?

I stopped reading at "...this is going to affect far more minorities than white workers."

When the race card is played, I tune them out.

Companies should just take out "Must be employed" from their ads and screen the candidates before the on-site interview.

Oh yes, I forgot. Discrimination doesn't happen anymore. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[editec]

While I certainly do not doubt that this policy will more greatly eliminate Black and minorities than Whites, I doubt that was its intent.

I think Maggie Mae got it in one

The business community now knows it can pick the creme de la creme from the work force

 

[xsited1]

...

N.J. Legislature, agency question job ads that limit based on employment history | NJ.com

If I had a dollar for every time I read in NJ.com "the first of its kind in the nation"...

Good idea?

I stopped reading at "...this is going to affect far more minorities than white workers."

When the race card is played, I tune them out.

Companies should just take out "Must be employed" from their ads and screen the candidates before the on-site interview.

Oh yes, I forgot. Discrimination doesn't happen anymore. Thanks for the reminder.

Faux Outrage, engage!

 

[chanel]

Is it REALLY necessary? How many state workers will they need to hire to check the want ads? And as many have said, they can still discriminate, they just can't advertise it. Many employers want older workers or younger workers etc, and while it may be discriminatory, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out someone's approximate age. Care is prob right about companies being flooded with apps from the unemployed. And some may just being doing it to keep their benefits - not because they are even interested. NJ has enough problems. This will just create more hostility between business and govt IMHO.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Having a job is something employers want to see.

It means you did what was needed to keep your job and are willing to do the same at thier place. Or there is a higher chance of it.

It seems brutally honest, and refreshing to see something like this. And it will save the unemployed from bothering to fill an app with that company.

 

[signelect]

Every one working knows that is easier to change jobs than to get one. This ad does not discriminate it just states a fact or policy and a private business owner has that right. I know that a lot of unemployeed just go around fulling the requirement of applying for enough jobs each week to me the unemployment requirement so they can get their check. They have no intention of taking a job. This is a broad brush but it does happen. I lost a job 8 months ago and got unemployment for two weeks and took a job that pay 1/2 of what I was making and $50/wk over unemployment but I took it because it was the right thing to do.