Some companies telling unemployed not to apply

[Politically_Incorrect12]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html

Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'
Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month? Bad news: Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants.

In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

There is more to the article for those interested. Some of the comments are little crazy though. I know this isn't a new thing, but I am surprised to see some that are so bold as to put it in the job postings.

[marvholly]

Cousin-in-law told me about this 'procedure' >6 months ago. Seems S.A.D. to me due to a currently employed having to give notice and maybe turning a job down after current employer matches/beats the new offer.

[handyman2]

Could that policy fall within discrimination? Just wondering.

[burnsattornincan]

Could that policy fall within discrimination? Just wondering.

You are getting too accustomed to US bs politically correct policies.

[Deleted]

It's ridiculous! I've been out of the workforce for 3 years as a SAHM and am going to start looking again. From my preliminary searches there's just not much available, then considering I'll probably be competing with 5+ people for jobs in addition to not being considered because I'm unemployed give me an incredibly diminished chance of actually finding something. Not to mention that if I do actually receive offers they will most likely be for positions for which I'm overqualified.

UGH! It just infuriates me!

[reasonfreedom]

Jan 23, 2011 10:05:20 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Not to mention violating "non-compete" agreements...

I don't think so, it is not race, religion, age, handicapp. Maybe they are just looking for people that are not out of practice with the field they are hiring. I know I work in the IT field and if I have been unemployed for more than 6 months it could render me useless compared to somebody that has been working the past 6 months.

[Tennesseer]

Isn't this what some posters want? An employer to be able to hire anyone they wish?

Politically_Incorrect12-you started another thread about ending protected classes in the workplace.

You can't have it both ways.

[Opti]

Jan 23, 2011 12:28:58 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jan 23, 2011 10:05:20 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Not to mention violating "non-compete" agreements...

I don't think so, it is not race, religion, age, handicapp. Maybe they are just looking for people that are not out of practice with the field they are hiring. I know I work in the IT field and if I have been unemployed for more than 6 months it could render me useless compared to somebody that has been working the past 6 months.

I'm really curious as to what you do in the IT field. Many of us who have been in and out of the field for a long time notice not that much changes. New languages come into favor,etc. But concept-wise nothing really really new IMHO. As an example, things like Netbooks were supposed to be one of the new big things over 25 years ago.

[fairlycrazy23]

I think this has always been the case , that all things being equal employers will favor currently employed over unemployed.

Asking whether you are employed or not is a legitimate question.

This seems perfectly logical:
"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

[reasonfreedom]

Jan 23, 2011 12:49:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 23, 2011 12:28:58 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

I don't think so, it is not race, religion, age, handicapp. Maybe they are just looking for people that are not out of practice with the field they are hiring. I know I work in the IT field and if I have been unemployed for more than 6 months it could render me useless compared to somebody that has been working the past 6 months.

I'm really curious as to what you do in the IT field. Many of us who have been in and out of the field for a long time notice not that much changes. New languages come into favor,etc. But concept-wise nothing really really new IMHO. As an example, things like Netbooks were supposed to be one of the new big things over 25 years ago.

Alot of my experience comes from vendor support and I was a lan administrator for a bank. I am curious what you do in the field? Multiple vendors constantly come out with new products and different coding. Needless to say multiple updates for windows and function specific applications. I would guess the IT field is one of the most changing/updating fields out there. It might not be as bad if you specialize in just one application. One of the jobs I worked was in a multi-vendor atmosphere. I worked with Cisco, EMC, Netapp, Nokia, Dell ect ect ... I had to keep updated and certified on a weekly basis. Most companies like the listed above have constant code updates, OS compatibility patches, changes in tools/ interface applications and if you are out for 6 months it makes it time\cost consuming for the employer. Just my experience though.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Isn't this what some posters want? An employer to be able to hire anyone they wish? >>>

...all posters should want that...

[Tennesseer]

Bingo! Toughtimes wins the prize.

[zipity]

Not to mention violating "non-compete" agreements...

Non-Compete, what's that? Non-compete went out the day "at will" employment came into practice. The only way a company will get me to not compete with them is to pay me. This is not to be confused with non-disclosure, I won't give away any company's intellectual property but if they let me go my first stop will be to their biggest competitors. Most courts these days will rule that the employee has the right to work and having been let go no company has the right to keep the employee from making a living.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 23, 2011 12:40:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Isn't this what some posters want? An employer to be able to hire anyone they wish?

Politically_Incorrect12-you started another thread about ending protected classes in the workplace.

You can't have it both ways.

I thought this thread would spark some debate over the practice of not allowing unemployed people to apply for jobs.

[Tennesseer]

P_I12-I must assume you believe a business owner has the right to hire only currently employed applicants for employment positions within his/her company or business and everyone complaining abut the "anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas" are a bunch of whiners.

Is that correct?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 23, 2011 18:01:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

P_I12-I must assume you believe a business owner has the right to hire only currently employed applicants for employment positions within his/her company or business and everyone complaining abut the "anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas" are a bunch of whiners.

Is that correct?

I think it's a bad move on the companies part to exclude so many applicants...it is their choice, but am honestly shocked that companies use this criteria.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 23, 2011 18:05:58 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 23, 2011 18:01:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

P_I12-I must assume you believe a business owner has the right to hire only currently employed applicants for employment positions within his/her company or business and everyone complaining abut the "anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas" are a bunch of whiners.

Is that correct?

I think it's a bad move on the companies part to exclude so many applicants...it is their choice, but am honestly shocked that companies use this criteria.

In your opinion P_I12, would you still say it was the company's choice (and legal) if instead of saying the unemployed should not bother to apply, they said no Asians should bother to apply?

[formerexpat]

Makes sense. Generally, in these environments, companies are cutting the dead wood from their companies.

This company is stating they don't want another company's former dead wood. They're interested in the A & B players only.

Sure it's not entirely true that every single person that is unemployed is a C and below employee but with the number of them out there, it's much easier to screen them out with this disclosure.

In your opinion P_I12, would you still say it was the company's choice (and legal) if instead of saying the unemployed should not bother to apply, they said no Asians should bother to apply?

[/size]

No, but if they said long haired freaky people need not apply then I'd be fuming!!

[handyman2]

Not hiring any one who applies that is unemployed is one thing. Putting it in print could in my view bring about a descrimination suit. In my view.

[Opti]

Jan 23, 2011 13:56:43 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jan 23, 2011 12:49:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm really curious as to what you do in the IT field. Many of us who have been in and out of the field for a long time notice not that much changes. New languages come into favor,etc. But concept-wise nothing really really new IMHO. As an example, things like Netbooks were supposed to be one of the new big things over 25 years ago.

Alot of my experience comes from vendor support and I was a lan administrator for a bank. I am curious what you do in the field? Multiple vendors constantly come out with new products and different coding. Needless to say multiple updates for windows and function specific applications. I would guess the IT field is one of the most changing/updating fields out there. It might not be as bad if you specialize in just one application. One of the jobs I worked was in a multi-vendor atmosphere. I worked with Cisco, EMC, Netapp, Nokia, Dell ect ect ... I had to keep updated and certified on a weekly basis. Most companies like the listed above have constant code updates, OS compatibility patches, changes in tools/ interface applications and if you are out for 6 months it makes it time\cost consuming for the employer. Just my experience though.

Among other things I've been a UNIX administrator and a programmer. Patching the OS and code updates to applications to me are business as usual. How the software and hardware work together, how you need to fix it doesn't dramatically change in 6 months. If you are out of work for 6 months are you going to forget how to patch a system and apply updates?

I've worked on multi-vendor environments as well. Certification wasn't the big deal as it is now. Before, it was more important you knew how to do the job and could do the work the way the employer wanted. Now its all about certs and years of experience on X, Y, and Z. I've fixed things for admins who only specialized in their brand of UNIX but didn't really understand it like I did. One had 6 years of experience on me. Yet I became a resource for him and several of his cohorts because I knew how to solve problems and where to look. It even helped me in my last under-employed position where the sign a vendor updated software might be the breaking of certain aspects of electronic invoice loading. Its my opinion that those who think being out 6 months is the kiss of death really do not understand the software and hardware on which they work.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

I don't like it, but I can understand where these companies are coming from. They don't want somebody desperate for a job, they want people who are already happy but want to be even happier.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

While I don't think the policy is necessarily the wisest ~ I do think that companies that put this boldly in their want ads are at least saving unemployed job seekers time and effort.

[workpublic]

IMHO at this point the unemployed should be the only "protected" class and be required to be hired first. ;D

[jkapp]

IMO, if applicants didn't send their resumes to every single job opening, regardless of their lack of any skill sets involved with the job, then policies like this wouldn't be needed.

If you were previously working as a janitor and now you are applying to be an engineer you are an idiot - or you actually took that bs "sanitation engineer" job title too literally

[ChiTownVenture]

How is this any different than requiring 1, 3, 5 or 10 years of experience? Why would this be discrimination but requiring experience is not?

The companies are looking for people who are currently working, IMO because they want people who are in demand. They want people that other employers want and the best way to identify these people are to pick people who are currently employed.

There is also something to be said about people who have take a year or two off from work. I would be concerned about their ability to get back into a routine of working every day and being productive for at least 8 hours a day.

These are valid points, even if they are unfair. But consider this a person moving from one company to another generally would create a net zero result. One company would fill a positions while another company would have an opening.

[ugonow]

Workers laid off tend to be the most expendable and not worth as much ..The employed ones are usually still employed because they are an asset to the company.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 24, 2011 8:00:08 GMT -5 workpublic said:

IMHO at this point the unemployed should be the only "protected" class and be required to be hired first. ;D

After the company (the subject of this thread) hires the employee from another company, there will be an opening (more than likely) at the company that lost the employee.

[Opti]

Jan 24, 2011 10:28:41 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Workers laid off tend to be the most expendable and not worth as much ..The employed ones are usually still employed because they are an asset to the company.

This is a false belief many people believe. Doesn't make it true. Some people are employed because they are buddies of a manager or owner, not because of competence. When companies layoff entire departments or divisions when others are doing so, there aren't enough jobs for all of them and the current employers aren't going to layoff some of their employees just in hopes of getting better ones as most people choose the devil they know over the one they don't.

[marjar]

Jan 24, 2011 10:28:41 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Workers laid off tend to be the most expendable and not worth as much ..The employed ones are usually still employed because they are an asset to the company.

I don't think that is always true in this economic climate. Many are out of work because companies went under. Also, certain skill sets aren't in demand. Folks who work in construction, for example. Good workers have been let go, in some parts of the country, there isn't enough work.

People in the real estate field and related fields have taken a hard hit. I think the idea that only the mediocre are without jobs is a fallacy.