Fun Snippet #48: It's Legal to discriminate against the unemployed

Overheal

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/dont-bother-applying-for-a-job-unless-you-have-one-some-listings-say.html

Did not know that... Apparently it is not illegal to advertise a job listing and have a requirement that you the applicant hold a current job (ie. The unemployed need not apply). It is illegal in a couple states but not most. Congress is looking at a bill to make it illegal, and so are MI and NY.

So very wrong.. But I suppose it's cheaper than the drug screenings that a good chunk of the unemployed never pass anyway. Seriously one girl applied for a job. Knew they'd test her, and went for it anyway. We screened in a group and she tested positive for Heroin, THC, Cocaine, and MDMA in one. that is who some people are up against. But seriously not cool to bar the unemployed. Not cool at all.

Amerika

But when you hire someone who already is employed, it opens up a position for someone not employed.

When I advertise for an open position, all resumes now must go to a newspaper P.O. Box established for us, and we no longer list our company name or phone number, just the type of job (and a few generalizations about what we do), the available position, and our requirements. When you advertise for a job these days, you are now inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of job seekers... not to mention the phone calls inquiring about the job. It takes up all your time, which is unacceptable. Wanting to hire someone already employed gives you a better chance of picking a superior candidate… because they are still employed for a reason, while so many others are unemployed.

So I can understand why it is done, but to advertise it is rather foolish, and to list your company's name is plain stupid as it will be dragged through the mud for doing so. You can still pretty much determine their employment status from their resume... under the employment section. Simply throw away the ones not employed, and if there are questions to employment status, again simply discard them as their will still be many dozens of qualified individuals available.

Few of us has the time anymore to devote towards finding that diamond in the rough.

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

But when you hire someone who already is employed, it opens up a position for someone not employed.

This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of logic I have seen, ever.

Amerika

karma_ wrote: »

This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of logic I have seen, ever.

Why?

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

Why?

Think about it, it should be obvious.

RichieC

karma_ wrote: »

Think about it, it should be obvious.

Note the poster. it wont be

Amerika

karma_ wrote: »

Think about it, it should be obvious.

Let's try this once again... Why?

Overheal

Round Robin: You can exclude the unemployed because you could essentially just keep shifting around employed people from job to job. The vacancy created could be just filled again by another employed person.

Manic Moran

Reaches a point of diminishing returns, though. All those sequential vacancies result in unrealised potential productivity, and this increases over time unless the economy is in recession. Eventually some employers will have to abandon the policy in order to survive as the work won't get done.

NTM

Amerika

An update... A section of President Obama's American Jobs Act includes the provision “Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of an Individual’s Status as Unemployed.” It pretty much allows job-seekers to seek damages if they feel they have been discriminated against... because they were unemployed. This provision is a job killer pure and simple (except for maybe Trial Lawers), and will only discourage companies from even interviewing unemployed candidates for fear of litigation. How does anyone with any common sense think businesses will offer positions with the kind of regulatory and legal climate that will be created under this provision?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/181323-obamas-jobs-plan-would-make-it-illegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed

Matt Holck

Amerika wrote: »

But when you hire someone who already is employed, it opens up a position for someone not employed.

When I advertise for an open position, all resumes now must go to a newspaper P.O. Box established for us, and we no longer list our company name or phone number, just the type of job (and a few generalizations about what we do), the available position, and our requirements. When you advertise for a job these days, you are now inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of job seekers... not to mention the phone calls inquiring about the job. It takes up all your time, which is unacceptable. Wanting to hire someone already employed gives you a better chance of picking a superior candidate… because they are still employed for a reason, while so many others are unemployed.

So I can understand why it is done, but to advertise it is rather foolish, and to list your company's name is plain stupid as it will be dragged through the mud for doing so. You can still pretty much determine their employment status from their resume... under the employment section. Simply throw away the ones not employed, and if there are questions to employment status, again simply discard them as their will still be many dozens of qualified individuals available.

Few of us has the time anymore to devote towards finding that diamond in the rough.

job listing not specifying companies look imaginary are may well be put out by an employment industry

I am not going to waste my time applying for invisible jobs

they say my job is to find a job
well, looking for a job doesn't pay
When I see these companies are getting their employees, I find my efforts redundant
my work ethic suffers because I have not contributed to society
or perhaps
One goes to find work and constantly hears "we don't need you"

Manic Moran wrote: »

Reaches a point of diminishing returns, though. All those sequential vacancies result in unrealised potential productivity, and this increases over time unless the economy is in recession. Eventually some employers will have to abandon the policy in order to survive as the work won't get done.

NTM

Markets can replace employees with automatic check out stands





and oh yes
if one isn't employed, one doesn't have health issuance.
Perhaps companies don't want to hire the unemployed
based on the cost of picking up someone who hasn't had health issuance for a year