Unemployed Need Not Apply

[Sunshine]

"Unemployed Need Not Apply", that is the mantra going around with some employers, hoping to snag the best candidates for their own employees. Politicians, hoping to combat such practices are toying with the idea of making a law to prohibit the practice, but that would likely be futile attempt for the employers would simply stop announcing it , leaving the policy in tact.

What would be the answer for a very employable potential grade A loyal candidate do in circumstances such as that? Why not go to an interview, tell them you are presently unemployed but you are eager to work for the company and willing to volunteer your services to demonstrate your sklls and value as a company man?

Talk about standing out from the bunch! Who would do that? Some one desperate for a job and confident he could demonstrate to company officials that he is worth the perceived risk that they feared. My bet is he would get that job before going on to hire anyone else.

Think outside the box. These times require it.

Jesus Christ! I can't believe people can be so unimaginative. Print up a few business cards at the local library and tell them you are self employed, but you really need a job for the insurance!

There ya go! Lol! But what happpens if they ask about your company and want to check it out? I am such an awful liar, I would flub it in an instant.

All you have to do to be in business in America is to say, "I'm in business." You don't have to act like you are a Fortune 500 company. You don't have to be an LLC or a Corporation. I know a guy who did odd jobs in TN who called himself 'Rent a Husband.' Give your relatives names as satisfied customers! LOL.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And another bullshit story the can try to tag the right with.

An act of desparation.

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

OK, Fine. You, as an employer? Are you ready for lawsuits? It appears it is coming...

As to my BS comment? It is a matter for me that I think it is ludicrous, and insipidly wrong that employers have to bear such actions when choosing good employees, and turning others down at thier disgression.

It appears as though you are engaging in a little BS yourself. You claimed that the story was fabricated to "tag" the right with. You said it was an act of desperation.

Then, after one of your bro's told you that the story is true....and HE EVEN does it........you tried to say that you were calling the legal actions that employers may face from doing it.....bullshit.

Weak.

 

[Jackson]

Jesus Christ! I can't believe people can be so unimaginative. Print up a few business cards at the local library and tell them you are self employed, but you really need a job for the insurance!

There ya go! Lol! But what happpens if they ask about your company and want to check it out? I am such an awful liar, I would flub it in an instant.

All you have to do to be in business in America is to say, "I'm in business." You don't have to act like you are a Fortune 500 company. You don't have to be an LLC or a Corporation. I know a guy who did odd jobs in TN who called himself 'Rent a Husband.' Give your relatives names as satisfied customers! LOL.

I see "CEO" in your future!

 

[The T]

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

OK, Fine. You, as an employer? Are you ready for lawsuits? It appears it is coming...

As to my BS comment? It is a matter for me that I think it is ludicrous, and insipidly wrong that employers have to bear such actions when choosing good employees, and turning others down at thier disgression.

It appears as though you are engaging in a little BS yourself. You claimed that the story was fabricated to "tag" the right with. You said it was an act of desperation.

Then, after one of your bro's told you that the story is true....and HE EVEN does it........you tried to say that you were calling the legal actions that employers may face from doing it.....bullshit.

Weak.

Try reading. I explained it.

Idiot.

 

[old navy]

Hiring people who currently have jobs is not new. The best time to job hunt is when you have a job and the best new hire is snatched from another job.

The problem with making it illegal to discriminate against the unemployed is that they will not be called in for an interview to start with.

I've turned down at least four jobs in the past year or so since I finished my master's. If I had been unemployed for the past year or two, I would not have been that strong of a candidate. Be it right or wrong, companies are in business to make a profit, and the people most qualified to help with that mission will get the job.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK, Fine. You, as an employer? Are you ready for lawsuits? It appears it is coming...

As to my BS comment? It is a matter for me that I think it is ludicrous, and insipidly wrong that employers have to bear such actions when choosing good employees, and turning others down at thier disgression.

It appears as though you are engaging in a little BS yourself. You claimed that the story was fabricated to "tag" the right with. You said it was an act of desperation.

Then, after one of your bro's told you that the story is true....and HE EVEN does it........you tried to say that you were calling the legal actions that employers may face from doing it.....bullshit.

Weak.

Try reading. I explained it.

Idiot.

I read it. I read your initial comment where you said that Jackson had posted a bullshit story. Then I read your explaination of what you meant by the BS comment.....after you were told that the story is true.

Where am I mistaken?

 

[Full-Auto]

And another bullshit story the can try to tag the right with.

An act of desparation.

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

OK, Fine. You, as an employer? Are you ready for lawsuits? It appears it is coming...

As to my BS comment? It is a matter for me that I think it is ludicrous, and insipidly wrong that employers have to bear such actions when choosing good employees, and turning others down at thier disgression.

They can pass what ever they wish. It would not change a thing with my hiring practices.

They can not legislate there way around experience. They can not legislate there way around my right to know if this person is an employee that comes to work everyday.

I can not support such idiocy. It is perfectly legal to hire or fire for political beliefs, but not if you need an actual work history? No chance in hell.

 

[Dragon]

This is to be expected under these circumstances, and is not a cause of the problem. Employers always prefer to hire people who already have jobs. That hasn't been a problem in the past because we had such a robust economy, with high consumer demand leading to a high demand for workers, that it wasn't always possible for employers to hire people who already had jobs, so that they had to hire the unemployed -- not because the law demanded it but because the economy did.

The problem isn't this practice, it's maldistribution of wealth, leading to slack consumer demand. The economy has reset itself after the Great Recession to serve this lower level of consumer demand, which requires fewer jobs. It has nothing to do with employment practices like this, and also nothing to do with regulations on business. It's simply that too much of the nation's wealth is going to the top, and not enough of it being spread around among the rest of us, who would, if we had the money, buy more products and services, which would require employers to hire more people.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It is an overhyped, bullshit story because most cases companies hire people with jobs because they are typically more qualified than unemployed people or have a better future than the unemployed person.

There is a reason why a company hiring for middle management will hire someone with experience over a recent college graduate that is unemployed. Also, when someone loses their job over criminal activity, laziness, stupidity, etc they tend to get passed over for that next job.

I'd bet this is a bullshit story to get lawyers and politicans on the left involved to create new laws to sue companies.

There is no logical reason for some company to openly say they won't hire someone because of being unemployed. It opens up lawsuits, etc.

This story is bullshit and is another angle socialists are going to use to undermine the US economy with laws passed to sue companies on a whim.

And another bullshit story the can try to tag the right with.

An act of desparation.

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

 

[Full-Auto]

It is an overhyped, bullshit story because most cases companies hire people with jobs because they are typically more qualified than unemployed people or have a better future than the unemployed person.

There is a reason why a company hiring for middle management will hire someone with experience over a recent college graduate that is unemployed. Also, when someone loses their job over criminal activity, laziness, stupidity, etc they tend to get passed over for that next job.

And another bullshit story the can try to tag the right with.

An act of desparation.

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

I cant argue one way or the other if this is hyped. But the stories are true, I have seen the advertisements. This attempt will gain zero traction.

 

[The T]

Its not a BS story. I have seen these advertisements myself. There are both pros and cons to the position. I myself have turned down potential employees based on work history or lack there of. The second most seen advertisement you see is where they state NO BAGGAGE!

OK, Fine. You, as an employer? Are you ready for lawsuits? It appears it is coming...

As to my BS comment? It is a matter for me that I think it is ludicrous, and insipidly wrong that employers have to bear such actions when choosing good employees, and turning others down at thier disgression.

They can pass what ever they wish. It would not change a thing with my hiring practices.

They can not legislate there way around experience. They can not legislate there way around my right to know if this person is an employee that comes to work everyday.

I can not support such idiocy. It is perfectly legal to hire or fire for political beliefs, but not if you need an actual work history? No chance in hell.

Indeed...after all? It is your company. You took the risk and call the shots that will make it prosper and that means getting the best people to make it happen.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah! That is bullshit!

 

[JoeB131]

"Unemployed Need Not Apply", that is the mantra going around with some employers, hoping to snag the best candidates for their own employees. Politicians, hoping to combat such practices are toying with the idea of making a law to prohibit the practice, but that would likely be futile attempt for the employers would simply stop announcing it , leaving the policy in tact.

What would be the answer for a very employable potential grade A loyal candidate do in circumstances such as that? Why not go to an interview, tell them you are presently unemployed but you are eager to work for the company and willing to volunteer your services to demonstrate your sklls and value as a company man?

Talk about standing out from the bunch! Who would do that? Some one desperate for a job and confident he could demonstrate to company officials that he is worth the perceived risk that they feared. My bet is he would get that job before going on to hire anyone else.

Think outside the box. These times require it.

Right. Because the very people who got us into this economic mess to start with wouldn't THINK of exploiting people with a system like that.

On the side, I run a resume service, and what I've found with my clients is the currently employed have a much better time finding new positions than the unemployed.

I think part of the reason is that employers concluded, fairly or unfairly, that if the company got rid of you, they had a reason to do so. It's not fair and it's not right, but it's life.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why not go to an interview, tell them you are presently unemployed but you are eager to work for the company and willing to volunteer your services to demonstrate your sklls and value as a company man?

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that out of your mind that you are going to advocate that people should have to WORK FOR FREE before they can get a job!?!?! Why in the world should the American people have to freely give their services to profit seeking endeavors, yet make no money themselves? How in the world is that consistent with the values of America, capitalism, or basic decency?

 

[Inthemiddle]

No address=no job. For chrissakes, this is the United States people should straighten up and act like it.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[ba1614]

The right wing pretends that the unemployed are lazy and do not want to work. They did this during the Great Depression also.

Many of them are, if your head was out of your ass you'd know that already.......

Lazy and/or useless if they've been more than a year without work. Lots of time and energy for excuses to stay on the government teat for 2 or 3yrs though.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about extending unemployment benefits for unlimited time frames during times of debt. Something has to be done to push our law makers to drop some the laws that prohibit the businesses from hiring. Everyone is at a standstill waiting for the other to make a move.

And how do unemployment benefits prohibit a business from hiring?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'd bet this is a bullshit story to get lawyers and politicans on the left involved to create new laws to sue companies.

There is no logical reason for some company to openly say they won't hire someone because of being unemployed. It opens up lawsuits, etc.

This story is bullshit and is another angle socialists are going to use to undermine the US economy with laws passed to sue companies on a whim.

You know, I could see such a policy potentially giving rise to a lawsuit, eventually. And who would want to take that risk, right? The risk of potential lawsuits for hitherto legally unestablished grounds for a claim always stops businesses from doing shady things. Right?

Here's a question....would it leave a company open to lawsuits to say to its employees, "All black people have tomorrow off, without pay, because tomorrow's customer doesn't want to be waited on by black people"? Do you think that the possibility of such discrimination lawsuits would prevent a business from doing something like that?

 

[Full-Auto]

Why not go to an interview, tell them you are presently unemployed but you are eager to work for the company and willing to volunteer your services to demonstrate your sklls and value as a company man?

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that out of your mind that you are going to advocate that people should have to WORK FOR FREE before they can get a job!?!?! Why in the world should the American people have to freely give their services to profit seeking endeavors, yet make no money themselves? How in the world is that consistent with the values of America, capitalism, or basic decency?

He didnt even imply that.

He did say take some initiative, think outside the box. No employer could legally take advantage of that anyway. I in the past, have made such offers when questioned if I could perform certain tasks.

The idea behind the concept is stand out from the crowd. I would add remain positive and energetic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Be it right or wrong, companies are in business to make a profit, and the people most qualified to help with that mission will get the job.

And how do you propose to support this assertion? What makes you so sure that the "most qualified" person gets the job? What if the most qualified person has been unemployed for the past two years because, despite his individual capabilities, he showed great devotion to his previous company and did everything he could to prevent it from going bankrupt? Your claim is about as good as a religious dogma. Perhaps that's the problem in this country today. We've now moved into the time of worshiping the church of the corporation.