Unfortunately this is often untrue. We look and hundreds of resumes weekly and if someone has not worked for the last 12+ months they are generally not considered for the open position. Our experience is that people who have been unemployed for an extended period, over 18 months, are not as employable. Their job and life skills have eroded, this is undeniable.
The extended UE benefits programs have been a disaster. Dictated and financed by the Feds, implemented by the states, they have provided a false sense of security. I cannot tell you the number of jobs offered that people have turned down because it will “disrupt their benefits”.
90 days of UE benefits max, then welfare if you cannot get a job. At least we can call it what it truly is.
schu
I bolded those comparative words because that is precisely the point. No screening tool is perfect -- not interviews, not resumes, not recommendations, and not whether they've been unemployed for an extended period. However, just because those screening tools aren't perfect doesn't mean they're not useful, or that employers aren't being reasonable in using those screening mechanisms.
Employment is a zero sum game -- if one person gets a job, someone else doesn't. The real problem is that not enough new jobs are being created. If net jobs are being created, then someone, somewhere, would have to be hiring the unemployed by definition. When you forbid employers form considering employment status, the most you're accomplishing is shuffling the individuals who are among the unemployed. You're not actually reducing unemployment at all.
Stupid, stupid proposal.
Its certainly possible for a IT worker in their 50’s or older being out of work that long. You realize how hard it is to get work even with relevant skills, given the huge numbers of foreign born young IT workers in the country?
Go ahead and tar good people with that brush, but remember that sooner or later you will also be older and get to experience the smirks on the faces of interviewers young enough to be our kids.