Unemployed Need Not Apply

I wish everyone had a job. Hell, I wish everyone had healthcare, but the question alway is, who's gonna pay for it. I'm just writing about the way things are right now. A candidate that makes themself more competitive may not create more jobs, but he or she creates a competitive advantage that just may get them hired.

There's enough work to be done, and there's enough money to pay people to do it. The problem is that the top 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 150,000,000 million. We have allowed horrible wealth disparity to occur, usually related to activities that have nothing to do with improving conditions in this country.

We have health insurance companies that pay CEO's 8 72 million dollar severance packages while refusing treatment to patients who die. Please. We spend more money than any other nation per capita and we don't cover everyone.

Again, I think both parties are to blame, because the Republicans are just fine with the wealth disparity, and the Democrats just want to pay people to loaf. Neither is good for us as a people.

And somewhere, we lost the 'can-do" spirit that built the Panama Canal, won two world wars, built an interstate highway system (that is now falling apart) and put men on the moon.
 
"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 employer "practices" this, and what would be their motive?

"Snagging the best candidates for their own employees" means matching qualifications with the job description, and filling the job at the least cost to the firm.

I would guess that anyone whose unemployment insurance has expired would come cheap, and slightly overqualified, a bargain for employers.

It's unrealistic for me to answer for I am not one of them, however, my guess is when downsizing the least producing employees are the ones that are the first to be dismissed.

That's why I believe it would be so important that the individual does something in the unemployed time to assure the potential next employer that wasn;t the problem in his dismissal.

By "least producing" I think you mean the least profit generating.

Profit is a function of both revenue generating and cost, neither of which are entirely in the hands of most non-self employed. Cost of maintaining employees has increased and employee benefit plans have chosen to maintain pace with increasing health insurance costs. All employers with any brains know this, so I cannot imagine any employer automatically assuming that an individual who is unemployed can ONLY be so for any one reason.
 

Forum List

Back
Top