Skip to comments.Latest brainstorm. Letís sue companies who refuse to hire the unemployed!
Posted on 09/23/2011 1:05:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well, at least they’re focusing on jobs, even if only for trial lawyers.
The latest brilliant plan to get people back to work seems to focus on… wait for it… punishing potential employers by dragging them into court on a whole new class of discrimination based lawsuits. The idea, spearheaded by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and a handful of other Democrats, would identify employers who run advertisements which specifically seek to avoid hiring people who are currently unemployed and allow them to be taken to court on some form of discrimination charge.
Lawyers should be allowed to win financial damages from companies that refuse to hire unemployed people, according to a coalition of Democratic legislators, progressive advocates and entrepreneurial trial lawyers.
The existence of even a few advertisements excluding unemployed applicants in the national marketplace justifies a federal law creating a novel market for legal skills, say the advocates.
We dont know for sure how extensive it is [but] if it is on one [job advertisement] website, thats too extensive for me, the bills chief backer, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, told the TheDC.
Apparently they have dug up approximately 150 advertisements from across the entire country which include something about unemployed candidates not needing to apply. What this really calls for is some sort of stupidity award for the HR departments at those firms because they’re just asking for trouble. Even if that’s really your intention, it’s easy enough to determine somebody’s employment status from the resume they submit and simply not offer an interview to the unemployed if that’s your preference.
What we don’t need is yet another excuse to go dragging employers into court, driving up their legal costs and, thereby, reducing the resources they have available to hire anyone. While I certainly sympathize with the instinct to see such hiring policies as unfair, (and stupid, frankly) the knee-jerk reaction shouldn’t be to set up a system to create an ever increasing death spiral of lawsuits clogging up the courts. If we improve conditions on the ground for employers to confidently bring on more workers, the available pool of labor shrinks and companies will need to compete for the best talent. It’s really not all that complicated.
ONLY THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED NEED APPLY.
The Department of Labor actually found 152 such advertisements recently in Monster and CarreBuilder.
See how they like that!
Yeah, something like this should appear in the ad:
“Those who support the demolition of the free market economy need not apply, since this firm participates in that economy.”
This doesn’t count the time-waster companies that advertize for jobs that they do not have, nor have any intention of fulfilling. I used to work for Dell, and it was common for us to interview people (desperate for a job) for positions that we didn’t have open. The idea was to intimadate people currently in that department, or to generate interviews for HR to measure our ‘Cultural Diversity’ against.
Anyway you look at it, the people who took the time to drive in, dress sharp and get their hopes up - were abused by Dell. After a short bit of this, I requested to be removed from the interview list.
I was going to say that discrimination on the basis of employment is perfectly rational, but I don’t want to anymore. I’m sick of having to justify discrimination. I’m sick of the state’s presumption of choosing what is and what’sm not proper choosing on the part of employers. Or anyone else, for that matter. It’s none of your business!
Today’s unemployed are in a catch 22 really.
You need a job but in order to find a job you must already have a job.
What we really need are businesses who are open minded enough to at least ask applicants to explain GAPS in employment rather than assume that all those who are currently unemployed are in that state due to incompetence or inability to do the job.
RE: to interview people (desperate for a job) for positions that we didnt have open.
Did DELL have to spend money to advertise for the non-existent position?
“You need a job but in order to find a job you must already have a job.”
No you don’t.
“What we really need are businesses who are open minded enough to at least ask applicants to explain GAPS in employment rather than assume that all those who are currently unemployed are in that state due to incompetence or inability to do the job.”
It’s not about open-mindedness. It’s that they’re (or at least the ones posting these announcements) so inundated with applications that they have to use some basis not to waste their time. Also, this sort of announcement isn’t all that common.
“What we really need are businesses who are open minded enough to at least ask applicants to explain GAPS in employment”
Is it REALLY necessary to explain a recession and 10% unemployment? What kind of moron HR people are out there?
RE: What kind of moron HR people are out there?
Too many I’m afraid. And I know of too many who can’t use common sense either. A lot of them don’t even know the meaning of the skillsets their companies are looking for and only work by key words written in a resume.
I even know of large companies that don’t bother to READ your resume, prefering to use some sort of smart scanning software to filter out certain people based on key words.
RE: You need a job but in order to find a job you must already have a job.
No you dont.
OK, can you then explain to me what the meaning of words like “Those currently unemployed need not apply”?
If this does not mean “you must have a job to find a job” (regardless of the advertiser’s intention), then I don’t know what else it means.
HR is bizzaro world. Most HR departments are a mess, and a fiscal liability, to the companies they serve.
Most large companies are starting to farm that out to a third party.
When I told them I didn't list that particular position because it was totally unrelated to my subsequent and current career path, they wanted to know details which were even more irrelevant.
I think they invited me because I have an ethnic sounding name and then rejected me because I don't look sufficiently ethnic to go with it. But I can't prove it.
Nope, Dell has their website that posts the job listings for people to apply for.
“If this does not mean ‘you must have a job to find a job’ (regardless of the advertisers intention), then I dont know what else it means.”
It means what you think it means. The point is that not all jobs have that requirement. Not very many of them at all have it, in fact, at least where I live.
Also, much like the conventional “1 to 3 years experience,” they don’t necessarily mean it. They are intended to drive applicants away, which doesn’t mean you can’t possibly get interviewed or get a job without fulfilling the requirement. Or maybe it does mean that, but not because the employers are closed minded.
You may have been better off in the long run. If the company was that stupid in how they handled potential employees, just imagine how they treat their actual employees in reality.
What would the unemployed applicants be suing to actually receive? An actual job with the company or the company providing them with some kind of cash settlement? If it’s the latter, I could easily see some unemployed person apply for a job he knows he’s not qualified for, get turned down, sue for unemployment discrimination, and then get a lot of cash from the company without having to work for it in return.
Back in the day you could call the former employer and he could give you the whole dish, good or bad, but now former employers can’t say because they might get sued.
unfortunately, even the employers who don’t specify this may require a credit check before hiring. how many unemployed people have good credit ?