Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unemployed need not apply (employers have advertised jobs listing current employment as a condition)
Republican Herald ^ | 6/03/11

Posted on 06/12/2011 8:15:32 AM PDT by Libloather

Unemployed need not apply
Published: June 3, 2011

One of the worst things about the plague of unemployment is that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it becomes to re-enter the work force. Technology moves on; skills fade.

It always has been easier to move from one job to another than to move to a job from unemployment. But the problem has been compounded by the depth of the Great Recession, a glut of workers, at every conceivable skill level, and a paucity of jobs. Of about 4.4 million unemployed Americans, about 1.75 million have been out of work for more than a year.

As reported in Time magazine, a hearing by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission earlier this year revealed that many employers have advertised jobs listing current employment as a condition for even applying.

Employers should be free to hire according to their own criteria, but not to discriminate based on unemployment, especially given near-cataclysmic economic events over the last three years.

Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, has introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011. It would amend the Civil Rights Act to stop employers from refusing to hire people on the basis of unemployment alone.

That's a fair step toward giving a break to people who need one the most.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apply; debt; default; economy; jobless; obamanomics; unemployed; victory
Our view: Telling the jobless not to apply is plain dopey

Carrot or stick? What will it take for employers to consider unemployed job candidates?

Ex-cons, supporters march in Durham to 'ban the box'

1 posted on 06/12/2011 8:15:40 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
It would amend the Civil Rights Act to stop employers from refusing to hire people on the basis of unemployment alone.

Good luck with that. They will just find some other "reason" not to hire you. Another stupid law we don't need.

2 posted on 06/12/2011 8:21:10 AM PDT by BipolarBob (There, but for the lack of Jose Cuervo, stumble I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Employers love to use other employers to screen the applicant pool. During my period of long unemployment in the early 1990s, I had several competing job offers after I contacted HR at places I'd interviewed to tell them wasn't available any more.

Reminds me of old girlfriends calling out of the blue after I got remarried.

3 posted on 06/12/2011 8:23:33 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I’m disgusted by such practices. I will make an active effort to not engage in commerce with any business that engages in such a reprehensible practice.


4 posted on 06/12/2011 8:23:33 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
One of the worst things about the plague of unemployment is that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it becomes to re-enter the work force. Technology moves on; skills fade.

Which, if one thinks about it, is precisely why extending unemployment bennies beyond a rational limit is destructive (to individuals, to the workforce, and to full employment.)

.

5 posted on 06/12/2011 8:28:09 AM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I have to wonder how many people are truly unemployed, as in not being able to find work at all, as opposed to it being a case of not finding work you like?

There aren’t any conveniences stores, fast food, or labour hiring?

From there, you can work yourself into a more agreeable position.


6 posted on 06/12/2011 8:28:45 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

By now most nonprofessional unskilled unemployed will take anything

The jobs are simply not there or will be in the future


7 posted on 06/12/2011 8:33:45 AM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
"From there, you can work yourself into a more agreeable position."

There is a practice that HR uses of linking a job offer's pay level to whatever your last job paid. Prove your last job had a high pay and get a better offer this time; take a low paid temporary job and you have a much more difficult task.

8 posted on 06/12/2011 8:35:29 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
(employers have advertised jobs listing current employment as a condition)

They usually don't intend to put it in the public job posting, but they do want recruiters to follow the rule and avoid sending them a stack of loser resumes.

Like any other "requirement" it's flexible in the case of promising candidates or good referrals. But it is a useful rule of thumb that the best people have many opportunities available to them (and are almost never out of work), while the worst people get fired early and often.
9 posted on 06/12/2011 8:36:11 AM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

Better to be the yeoman farmer than a caged employee.


10 posted on 06/12/2011 8:36:41 AM PDT by x_plus_one (fiqh al aqalliyyat: flood the zone and win big.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Change! Change we can BELIEVE in!


11 posted on 06/12/2011 8:37:24 AM PDT by denydenydeny (Rage all you want, looters & moochers, but the gods of the copybook headings are your masters now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

This is nothing new. For years I worked in a state employment service, and would always counsel unemployed people to take any job they could find and then to keep looking for a job they really wanted. That was because someone who is already working is more attractive to potential employers than someone who isn’t.


12 posted on 06/12/2011 8:38:31 AM PDT by Stirner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

As opposed to no job, no hourly rate, and no cash.

Which underscores my point, that some of the unemployment is due to personal choice.

The way it is right now, I’d take what I could get, but wouldn’t show much loyalty to employers, even taking a job for a few days, to bridge to another job.


13 posted on 06/12/2011 8:40:23 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Well, suppose they do hire someone who is currently working. That will create an opening at his workplace. Sure, they may also hire someone who is already employed, but eventually someone will have to hire the unemployed.


14 posted on 06/12/2011 8:45:00 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred
It's not just a rule of thumb, it's usually true. People live their lives in patterns. Excellent people will tend to still be excellent, even in less then ideal situations and lackadaisical will tend to be lackadaisical, even in the best of circumstances.
15 posted on 06/12/2011 8:47:10 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"But if you get too many unemployed people working, My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Photobucket
16 posted on 06/12/2011 8:49:07 AM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
I have to wonder how many people are truly unemployed, as in not being able to find work at all, as opposed to it being a case of not finding work you like?

It has been my experience that commonly someone who will be grossly underemployed will not be hired because as soon as something opens up in their field they'll be gone.

Usually, the potential employer would rather train someone they think will be around (and not present an eventual threat to their position).

17 posted on 06/12/2011 8:53:34 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Another stupid law....why? Why is this a stupid law? Can anyone tell me the answer to that?

Because it takes away the individual’s ability to bargain for their own production’s worth.


18 posted on 06/12/2011 8:54:38 AM PDT by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Two months ago, I was hired and relocated after four months of being laid off. Now the new employer is being sold and will likely create massive lay-offs this fall.

I’m already updating my resume and plan to start sending out applications before the trap door falls. Most everyone where I work is doing the same.


19 posted on 06/12/2011 9:31:13 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

I remember when Texas first started deducting child support from paychecks. Many employers did not want to be in the middle of it so the law was that an employer could not deny you employment if your child support was to be deducted. In Texas an employer does not have to have a reason to fire you. Lots of people lost their jobs over this. And even more couldn’t get hired. And that included me for a while. Eventually business got comfortable with the procedure.

So, you’re right. No employer is going to say “I’m not hiring you because you don’t have a job. I’m not hiring you because there was someone who was more qualified. (he had a job)”


20 posted on 06/12/2011 9:49:37 AM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
I had several competing job offers after I contacted HR at places I'd interviewed to tell them wasn't available any more.

LOL -- good idea.

Oderint dum telephonent.

21 posted on 06/12/2011 12:50:31 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

I applied to one company 46 times for jobs that I am fully qualified for. My last resume to them, I reduced my experience from 20 years to 9 years. A week later I got a call.

I cannot prove it, but a 50 year old white man without a college degree but over 20 years of industry experience is not welcome in the workforce as a full time employee.


22 posted on 06/12/2011 1:42:20 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Sarah Palin, the only candidate to be vetted by the NY Times, the Washington Post and NBC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Just a question. Are these unemployed taking classes to keep their skills up to date?


23 posted on 06/12/2011 2:08:53 PM PDT by NoGrayZone ("Islamophobia: The irrational fear of being beheaded.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Well, I can see the Employers point.
Candidate 'A' got his BSME in 1970, his PE License in 1972 and an ME in 1975 and worked for one engineering firm until 2000. That's when they went out of business and 'A' hasen't worked since - for whatever reason. (yes, and OLD to boot)

Candidate 'B' only has a BSME that he got in 1998, didn't try for his PE License, is still employed, but wants this new job.

Now candidate 'A' sure has a lot more 'knowledge', as the laws of Physics hasn't changed, but he hasn't worked in Eleven Years. But 'B', the young whippersnapper has steadily worked and is up to date with Current Technology with the new gizmos as to HOW TO APPLY those laws of Physics.

So. If 'A' is hired a lot of time by 'someone' will be needed to train the 'old timer' how to operate all these new gizmos and apps that have come out in the past eleven years. So 'A' isn't earning his pay and he's causing another employee lost time for training - and time is money. The company is now losing money from hiring the very experienced person.

But if 'B' is hired it's a given that he's already qualified so a PE license isn't needed, nor is a Masters Degree. And 'B' already knows how to use all the gizmos and apps as he's employed. This is now a no brainer. In hiring 'B' its a plus for the company all around. (NOTE: Salary isn't an issue, it'd be same for anyone hired)

This may seem 'unfair' but a businesses business isn't about fairness, it's about profit. And when the government gets involved with new 'fairness laws' for businesses, we're done for. America has become a socialist Communist state. Everyone would be in one big union, with everyone guaranteed a job and all making the same salary.

Whether they're worth it, or not.

24 posted on 06/12/2011 2:14:10 PM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits [A.Einstein])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, has introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011. It would amend the Civil Rights Act to stop employers from refusing to hire people on the basis of unemployment alone.

Hank Johnson on the danger of the Island of Guam tipping over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg


25 posted on 06/12/2011 2:19:19 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I'm free at last (retired Dec 1999))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

That actually can make it harder to go back up to the previous level, too. Our most recent job is typically weighted much more heavily than previous jobs.


26 posted on 06/12/2011 2:49:54 PM PDT by RockinRight (Rock you like a Hermancain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one

If the cage pays enough...


27 posted on 06/12/2011 2:53:59 PM PDT by RockinRight (Rock you like a Hermancain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Maybe 5 years ago, but I think it’s probably more acceptable now to take a step back. Especially if that stepping back wasn’t wasted, in terms that you did some courses.


28 posted on 06/12/2011 3:02:03 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

This is an excuse to get illegals, I suppose... along with Libertarians making drug growing legal but not food stuff, medicine and business.


29 posted on 06/12/2011 3:08:25 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Good. Stupid practices like that are encouraging to those of us choking off revenues from the elite with self-sufficiency, frugality, anti-consumerism and development of technical skills. We’re going to get that new leadership.


30 posted on 06/12/2011 4:19:54 PM PDT by familyop (Shut up, and eat your brains!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I understand this completely--a no-brainer. If you are hiring from another employer, that employer has done the training and processed the paperwork and it proves that the guy can show up in the morning.

It's a buyer's market, and the best deal is to get someone who's already employed.

Keep in mind that this would also include a McJob, which would tell me that the prospect will work to support himself instead of taking a handout.

31 posted on 06/12/2011 4:31:25 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
I’m disgusted by such practices. I will make an active effort to not engage in commerce with any business that engages in such a reprehensible practice.

Currently, labor is a buyers market. Employers can afford to demand and hold out for the best.

32 posted on 06/12/2011 7:19:10 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stirner

people who have a job looking for a better job have a chance IF there under age 55....be 55 or over, no one will take you....no matter the qualifications,resumes,references....


33 posted on 06/12/2011 10:37:02 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

Tell me about it. I have been working, but searching, and requirements are so strict, about the only job I am qualified for is the one I already have.


34 posted on 06/13/2011 4:50:45 AM PDT by RockinRight (Rock you like a Hermancain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Popman

I have skills and an education, been out of work one year. laid off because the local Boy Scouts of American could not meet payroll needs. The thing that gets me is the employees who voted for obama are still employed and he is the cause of all this.


35 posted on 06/13/2011 5:54:54 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Picture of sitting caged executive

Pick your poison...

36 posted on 06/13/2011 6:48:37 AM PDT by x_plus_one (fiqh al aqalliyyat: flood the zone and win big.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

it also indicates you have not sued your employer, you are not deadweight already laid off, and you are not an office troublemaker.


37 posted on 06/13/2011 8:25:39 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
In truth Obama didn't cause this recession, it was coming before he won the election. We can certainly blame him for extending the recession though idiotic and misguided Keynesian economic theories

When he tells us Bush drove in the ditch he forgets to mention Franks and Dodd were the navigators and after we went into a ditch they took the tires off and drained the gas tank

38 posted on 06/13/2011 2:11:11 PM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
Currently, labor is a buyers market. Employers can afford to demand and hold out for the best.

True, and I don't advocate a government-intervention type action. I will however, do my best to express my disgust at it. I know highly talented people who would do a great job if given the chance.

39 posted on 06/14/2011 6:01:32 PM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson