Companies Refuse to Interview the Unemployed

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There seems to be mounting evidence that companies, many of them in the tech industry, are refusing to interview unemployed people for jobs. I know you guys are going to have an opinion on this one, should jobs only be offered to people that are already employed?

When Sony Ericsson needed new workers after it relocated its U.S. headquarters to Atlanta last year, its recruiters told one particular group of applicants not to bother. "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all," one online job listing said.
Click to expand...
 
Total Bullshit and a very discriminatory practice. Sounds like it should also be Illegal.
 
This has been very common the last few years. It's very hard to get a job while unemployed, it's stupid but true. You are more likely to get hired for a better higher paid position while employed than someone unemployed even though that someone probably has gone through more education and work experience. You basically either have to A) Bullshit your resume to the max, B) Have someone already working the field who you can make friends with, or C) Be employed in around the field of work you are applying for.
 
"No unemployed candidates will be considered at all."

I read this as, "A second job is needed because we will not be paying more than min wage." :D
 
NickJames said:
This has been very common the last few years. It's very hard to get a job while unemployed, it's stupid but true. You are more likely to get hired for a better higher paid position while employed than someone unemployed even though that someone probably has gone through more education and work experience. You basically either have to A) Bullshit your resume to the max, B) Have someone already working the field who you can make friends with, or C) Be employed in around the field of work you are applying for.
Click to expand...

This! Truthfully, it has been like this for a long time, even when I entered the workforce 10 years ago.
 
heatlesssun said:
I saw a piece on this on ABC News last week and its perfectly legal as the unemployed aren't a protected class under current anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Just read that in the article. I'm not one for overly intrusive laws, but in this case, yea, we need to pass a law against it.

Of course there are ways around it. If asked " I'm privately employed, but NDA's prohibit me from saying anything further"
 
Idiocy. It is one thing in normal times of "full" employment (5% unemployment) but for example in California, a tech center, unemployment is 12%. HR departments have to be really lazy and stupid to think that the full 12% means they are underqualified and/or lazy. How many companies have shut down, downsized, gone through layoffs and let many qualified people go?
 
You all may have noticed that the people loan money only do so to those that already have it. Oh, and things like meals, trips, etc. are given to the rich and famous as well.

Life's not easy, nor is it fair. I don't like that but such is the way of the world (at least in Capitalistic systems).
 
TwistedAegis said:
Idiocy. It is one thing in normal times of "full" employment (5% unemployment) but for example in California, a tech center, unemployment is 12%. HR departments have to be really lazy and stupid to think that the full 12% means they are underqualified and/or lazy. How many companies have shut down, downsized, gone through layoffs and let many qualified people go?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's where they are coming from at all.

I believe the way these people think is that when companies are in trouble and are forced to lay people off, they don't lay off their best people. If they are forced to choose, they will keep their higher performers.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the person who was laid off was a poor performer, just that they weren't the best. Many employers thus feel like if they are looking at the unemployed pool they are getting a lower average candidate than when they look at someone who is already employed.

Of course, this doesn't account for situations where entire divisions are shuttered, or entire companies go out of business, so it is likely not very accurate at all.

Another thing the unemployed have against them is that the longer they are unemployed, the less fresh their skills are in their mind. You know how you feel coming back to work after a two week vacation. For the first day or so, you are getting back up to speed and remembering what it was you were doing and maybe even relearning some things. Now make that 2 months, or 6 months, or a year or two years. The unemployed person is going to be a little rusty and out of the loop, whereas an employed person can "hit the ground running" (to use a dumb-ass corporate buzz-phrase).

It's not fair, but unfortunately its reality.

At least the solace lies in the fact that as the economy recovers, eventually there will be enough of a shortage of already employed candidates looking for jobs, that hiring companies will be forced to consider the unemployed.

Right now, the labor market is a buyers market, so they can be very picky, and if they don't feel like reading through thousands of resume's of unemployed people who may or may not be qualified, and instead can focus on two or thee candidates that are already doing the job and thus automatically qualified, then they are going to do it...
 
jcollett said:
Life's not easy, nor is it fair. I don't like that but such is the way of the world (at least in Capitalistic systems).
Click to expand...

It's that way in all systems.

In the communist world, the only people who got stuff were the party bosses, and they already had it :p
 
Kelby said:
"No unemployed candidates will be considered at all."

I read this as, "A second job is needed because we will not be paying more than min wage." :D
Click to expand...

LOL.. OK... not really funny.. but i laughed.
 
I actually don't understand why they wouldn't want to hire the unemployed people... Most unemployed people that I know in the IT field are taking advantage of free training and certification courses that government is paying for as part of their unemployment benefits. They are studying their assess off while collecting to improve themselves and make themsevles more qualified for these postions. Their minds are fresh with knowledge and motivation...
 
So companies in USA will rather fight for people who have jobs, which means they will have to offer higher sallary and other benefits to get that specific employee - instead of the guy who is uneployed, will work for 20% less salary and has pretty much same skills ? Makes no sense to me.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Idiocy. It is one thing in normal times of "full" employment (5% unemployment) but for example in California, a tech center, unemployment is 12%. HR departments have to be really lazy and stupid to think that the full 12% means they are underqualified and/or lazy. How many companies have shut down, downsized, gone through layoffs and let many qualified people go?
Click to expand...

The current lawsuit happy climate we live in have made employer references almost meaningless, as most places will never do more then confirm dates of employment, to avoid being sued.

With that being the case it's far safer to limit your pool of candidates to those currently employed as they have a considerably higher chance of being trouble free employees then those hired from the ranks of the unemployed.
 
jcollett said:
Life's not easy, nor is it fair. I don't like that but such is the way of the world (at least in Capitalistic systems).
Click to expand...

No, it is not. This thing is pretty specific to USA, i have yet to see a company who don't even consider unemployed.
 
Kind of hard to get a job when you need a job to get a job to pay for a car/insurance/tabs/gas to get to your job to get paid to eat.
 
The job market has always somewhat unspokenly been this way. You have to have a job to get a job. People wonder what is wrong with you that you don't have a job. It's not always the right way to think but it is hardly anything new.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
The job market has always somewhat unspokenly been this way. You have to have a job to get a job. People wonder what is wrong with you that you don't have a job. It's not always the right way to think but it is hardly anything new.
Click to expand...

it IS the right way to think, you want a lazy bum working for you that you will likely to fire later? no.
 
We just filled a position. Had a lot of guys come through that were currently out of work who are obviously grabbing at anything. If we hire that guy and he leaves in a year after the job he really wants opens up then we've just wasted a year of training and have to fight to refill the position all over again.

A guy who already has a job *wants* to be here. A guy without is very likely just buying himself some time on my back.
 
It is the same way in healthcare. Filled out over 100 applications, signed on with 7 contract/travel agencies, and never heard back from any of them save for the occasional inquiry. Definite unemployment discrimination out there. 34 years experience (as a respiratory therapist/sleep technologist) ought to be worth something.
 
faugusztin said:
So companies in USA will rather fight for people who have jobs, which means they will have to offer higher sallary and other benefits to get that specific employee - instead of the guy who is uneployed, will work for 20% less salary and has pretty much same skills ? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way...

The person still working is valuable to their company, the person not working was for what ever reason not as valuable - they were laid off, fired, position eliminated, company went under. So, in theory, the person still working is a better catch. Just because you can hire someone at less $ doesn't always make it worthwhile.

Is this accurate? Not always. I've been one of those who got laid off and interviews were few and far between. Is it "fair" ? Not really. There is a strange mentality in larger corporations "why were they picked to get laid off.. .what is wrong with them?" and so on. Sad, but this is the way that it is... and yes, it sucks big time when you are the one looking for work.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037294651 said:
This doesn't necessarily mean that the person who was laid off was a poor performer, just that they weren't the best. Many employers thus feel like if they are looking at the unemployed pool they are getting a lower average candidate than when they look at someone who is already employed.
Click to expand...
True but there are also the "overpaid". I don't mean people who aren't doing shit and getting paid a lot. I'm talking about people who are doing good, getting paid appropriately, but the employer finds out they can hire 3 people with a total cost LESS than that one person where those 3 people do just as much work of not more.

But again they were let go, zero fault of their own.

But on the topic I will say over all the jobs I have done I had a MUCH easier time getting a new job if I was still employed instead of quitting (bad idea) or giving two weeks THEN searching for a new job.

But you run into issues. Some companies don't exactly play all nice nice if they find out one of their employees is looking for another job. They may start digging for reasons to fire you or make your work hell. Nothing like being caught looking for a job, not finding one, then have your current employer cut your pay or other things.
 
Makes sense to me.
Tech comapnies are being flooded with applicants as soon as they list a job because the number of unemployed.
Though it's an unfair generalization the unemployed are that way for a reason, and in this economy someone who is employed is benafitting their comapny. So as an employer I'd do this whether or not I told the public I was doing so, just to make it through all the applications.
The companies that are saying they are doing this are just trying to save everybody some time.
 
oh, i got a new job. it starts in a few months. I am still employed. :p
 
somecallmeTim said:
Think of it this way...

The person still working is valuable to their company, the person not working was for what ever reason not as valuable - they were laid off, fired, position eliminated, company went under. So, in theory, the person still working is a better catch. Just because you can hire someone at less $ doesn't always make it worthwhile.

Is this accurate? Not always. I've been one of those who got laid off and interviews were few and far between. Is it "fair" ? Not really. There is a strange mentality in larger corporations "why were they picked to get laid off.. .what is wrong with them?" and so on. Sad, but this is the way that it is... and yes, it sucks big time when you are the one looking for work.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that this is a pretty good summary of the issue.

HR's job is to find the best person for the job they need to fill. When the economy is bad and unemployment is high, the hiring company is in the drivers seat because they will have a large number of potential candidates to choose from. Whether due to a lack of resources or just plain laziness/company policy, they will use metrics to quickly weed out less-desirable CV's, and being unemployed can obviously put someone toward the bottom.

That said, it's pretty safe to say they will miss out on good, qualified people by operating in this manner.

Would a law against this be helpful? Maybe, but I'd doubt too many people would ever be able to bring a case against a company, let alone win, because they believed they were passed up for a job due to being unemployed at the time.
 
Bohica69 said:
Just read that in the article. I'm not one for overly intrusive laws, but in this case, yea, we need to pass a law against it.

Of course there are ways around it. If asked " I'm privately employed, but NDA's prohibit me from saying anything further"
Click to expand...

At least someone's working on it! :)

from article said:
Ending discrimination against the unemployed would most likely require new laws. In Congress, Representative Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, has introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011, which would amend the Civil Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire people simply because of their employment status.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
...should jobs only be offered to people that are already employed?
Click to expand...

No, jobs should be offered to the most qualified candidate, who fits the position the best and who will provide the service the employer needs in the most efficient way. Unemployed or employed, it shouldn't matter. This ain't complicated.
 
I'm an unemployed computer science student, going to graduate in the fall of this year. I am currently seeking a full time job because I will only be taking a single class in the fall semester. Just this past week, I had 3 different interviews. This week so far, I have one scheduled.

I have been 'seriously' looking for a job for about 3 weeks.

I completely disagree that companies refuse to interview the unemployed. I think that are few, if any, companies like that.
 
Next thing you know, they will pass a law preventing companies from discriminating against under qualified applicants entirely.
 
here is the backside to it, people know this and will start looking whenever they don't like anything about their current job. If you have a good record but find something better there is not much stopping someone who just started from applying somewhere else vs someone hungry, I mean literally hungry that will do the work and pay the bills.

Graduated top of my class tutored people in next class behind me and it took over two years and a crazy guy to just hire me. I am the only person still here from when they started and if we had awards like MVP I'd probably get it.
 
When I applied for different jobs while I was employed, most every one got back to me.... when I was unemployed, it took a long time to find any bites at all.

It's ridiculous...
 
Been unwritten accepted practice for years if not decades... nothing new.

Bites when you're on the wrong end of that stick though to be sure... you can act as smug as you want until it happens to you anyways...

everyone is replaceable.
 
I hope they get sued for that kind of discrimination, if someone can do the job, it shouldn't matter if they are working or not when interviewed. And in this current climate of a financial cluster fuck, anyone and everyone is looking for a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top