How Employers Weed Out Unemployed Job Applicants, Others, Behind The Scenes

[Amerigo Vespucci]

How Employers Weed Out Unemployed Job Applicants, Others, Behind The Scenes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/unemployed-job-applicants-discrimination_n_809010.html



An Indianapolis restaurant posted a Craigslist job ad on Dec. 15 for a bar manager who must "be able to handle the guests, give outstanding service, ensure excellent product from the bar and food side." The ad lists one other important requirement: "Must be currently employed!"

Such ads, several of which appear on job sites every day, showcase a not-so-subtle approach to hiring discrimination.

There are more secretive and systemic forms of hiring discrimination, however, a government attorney and a staffing insider say.

Bob Rose, a supervisory trial attorney for the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, told HuffPost he frequently comes across cases of companies using codewords in employer profiles that indicate to a staffing firm the particular race, gender or age they want in a candidate.

[snagglepuss]

1. Why don't they want to hire the unemployed? nt

[Amerigo Vespucci]

3. Employers feel the unempoyed are "needy," or "damaged goods"

It's that way in better economic times, too, but right now it's chronic. Same logic that applies to dating...it's always easier to get a date of you already have a S.O....

...sucks, but it's the way a lot of people think, that there is "something wrong" with a person who is not working right now.

[LiberalEsto]

7. It's insane

I wouldn't want to work for an employer with that kind of attitude, because they'll crap on you in many different ways if they do hire you. Unfortunately, they hold all the cards.

[Joanne98]

9. Because they're SCUM! They need their taxes RAISED!

[KansDem]

2. Why would an "employed person" be preferred over an "unemployed person?"

:shrug:

[freethought]

5. Who the hell knows!!

The rationale for not hiring someone out in the private sector right now is as twisted as it gets. It's seems impossible that ANYONE is getting a job these days. Some firms will hire unemployed but will only take those who have been out of work for sixty days or less. An article I read said that if you were laid off then there must be something wrong with you as an employee and those who have retained their jobs are wanted. As a result firms want someone that is wanted and thus "unemployed need not apply".

I have been told this is just one way to whittle down the applicants for an opening. Hiring managers are inundated with applications. I suppose that is possible.

I do tend to think that this approach of no unemployed applicants accepted has potential to backfire. If someone is willing to jump ship from one employer to another in a time or recession or during an anemic recovery like we are in now then that person will likely be the first person to bolt from their new employer when the economy gains more strength. Someone who has been hired after a long period of unemployment will likely show more loyalty and stick around long term.

[rfranklin]

4. It's easier than checking a person's qualifications...

to see if they are suitable for the job.

It's the "let's go with the winner" syndrome. If you were fired, it matters not why, you are a loser.

Also, if they don't work out, it couldn't possibly be blamed on the HR department. "Hey, corporation X thought he was okay!"

[Still a Democrat]

There is some validity to this, particularly for white collar professions

The basic question is *why* are you out of work? Top performing employees generally don't get laid off unless they're part of a overall facility closing, in which case they normally have time to secure other employment before their job goes away. Often a person is out of work because he is involved in a partial staff reduction - these tend to give less notice and involve lower performers. And sometimes folks just get fired - again, unexpected and involves lower performers. Bottom line, it's less common for a top performer to unexpectedly lose his/her job.

Employment gaps are red flags, particularly current ones. Anyone in recruiting worth their salt will tell you that.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Bullshit.

[undeterred]

11. That is Human Resources bullshit.

Keep repeating it over and over and stupid people will believe it.

[Still a Democrat]

6. There is some validity to this, particularly for white collar professions

The basic question is *why* are you out of work? Top performing employees generally don't get laid off unless they're part of a overall facility closing, in which case they normally have time to secure other employment before their job goes away. Often a person is out of work because he is involved in a partial staff reduction - these tend to give less notice and involve lower performers. And sometimes folks just get fired - again, unexpected and involves lower performers. Bottom line, it's less common for a top performer to unexpectedly lose his/her job.

Employment gaps are red flags, particularly current ones. Anyone in recruiting worth their salt will tell you that.

[Blue_Tires]

8. kick