Jobs not available to those who are unemployed

Danny Tse

I just came upon this item in the San Francisco Chronicle....

Among recent job postings placed by Anderson Staffing, a San Francisco "full service staffing boutique that specializes in the placement of attorneys and legal personnel," was the following:

"Two openings for Corporate/Transactional Legal Secretaries in the Finance/Real Estate departments." Salary: $70,000-$80,000 a year. "We are also looking for a Legal Sec/EA (executive assistant) to Managing Partner." Salary: $80,000-$90,000 a year.

Among the must-have qualifications for the positions: "solid large law firm experience," "very flex for overtime," "friendly, polished and team player," "take charge type of person - large presence ... not meek."

Oh, and one other, as posted on CareerBuilder.com and HotSanFranciscoJobs.com: applicants must be "currently employed."

In New Jersey, such a posting would be illegal. A law signed by the state's Republican governor in March expressly prohibits posting a job ad that "knowingly or purposely" states that "qualifications for a job include current employment" - or that lack of same is an automatic disqualifier.

But not, as yet, in California, where the unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, or anywhere else in the nation.

"When I first found out about this, I thought, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who said he will introduce legislation similar to the New Jersey law soon after Sacramento reopens for business in the new year.

"Being unemployed in this economy is stigma enough," he said. "But the fact that you can eliminate an entire class of people from competing for a job is unacceptable."

It's not surprising, in a highly competitive job market, that companies might prefer applicants who are already gainfully employed over those who have been out of work and may have lost their skills. "Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," said University of Colorado law Professor Helen Norton, testifying at a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing in February.

The practice first came to light last year, when it was reported that mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson had added "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all" language to a job posting at its Atlanta headquarters. Since then, the practice appears to have spread.

Norton said companies and employment agencies have applied the "no unemployed allowed" sticker on jobs ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant managers and mortgage underwriters (oh, the irony!).

Employers that have used the "must be currently employed" language in job postings, according to a survey conducted by the National Employment Law Project in March, include the Cypress Hospitality Group, advertising for a kitchen manager in San Francisco, and the University of Phoenix, looking for a professor to teach at its Fresno campus.

Legislation to ban discrimination against unemployed job applicants is moving through state houses in New York, Illinois and Michigan. Similar legislation has been introduced in Congress, and President Obama has sought to attach a provision to his American Jobs Act.

All are designed, in the words of the National Employment Law Project, "to prohibit the perverse catch-22 that requires workers to have a job before they can get a job."

That same catch-22, it observed, "is deepening our unemployment crisis by arbitrarily foreclosing job opportunities to many who are otherwise qualified for them"

What kind of backward logic is this?

ryanjoachim

There is a certain amount of logic involved behind the idea of requiring employment, but practicality needs to win out in this case.

mhardy6647

Just as Groucho Marx observed - he did not wish to be part of a club which would stoop to having him as a member.

sucks2beme

It's always been a lot easier to get a job if you have one.
Also, if two people apply for the job, the guy that isn't local
is normally looked at as being the better candidate. Also stupid, but true.
Young and good looking=++++. Old=

---

.
This has all been tested and found to be the bias of people doing the hiring.

Jstas

ryanjoachim wrote: »

There is a certain amount of logic involved behind the idea of requiring employment, but practicality needs to win out in this case.

What logic? Discrimination? What if your company folded, went out of business completely? Does that mean you're unemployable because your management failed you?

Whether the prevailing attitude is that way or not is hard to police but actively basing your hiring practices around it is ****. If you think that the unemployed are unreliable because of whatever idiotic assumption you want to make about them that's one thing. But you don't dismiss the entire group over a couple bad apples that effective interviewing and hiring practices should easily weed out. If your company routinely hires idiots that drag everything down then that's not the state of their employment's fault. That's your idiot HR rep that can't smell a bad fish. Probably 'cause they have their head so far up their hind end if their nose itches, they have to scratch their stomach.

ryanjoachim

Jstas wrote: »

What logic? Discrimination? What if your company folded, went out of business completely? Does that mean you're unemployable because your management failed you?

Whether the prevailing attitude is that way or not is hard to police but actively basing your hiring practices around it is ****. If you think that the unemployed are unreliable because of whatever idiotic assumption you want to make about them that's one thing. But you don't dismiss the entire group over a couple bad apples that effective interviewing and hiring practices should easily weed out. If your company routinely hires idiots that drag everything down then that's not the state of their employment's fault. That's your idiot HR rep that can't smell a bad fish. Probably 'cause they have their head so far up their hind end if their nose itches, they have to scratch their stomach.

Anger aside, the "certain amount" I was speaking of referred to the people who apply for jobs that they were qualified for years ago, but aren't current on their certifications/laws/policies/etc. There are plenty of people who can BS their way through an interview, and end up failing because they just don't have the current education they need.

Not saying I agree with the companies doing this, because I don't. I think it's idiotic to do a blanket "you're unemployed...go away" policy. It's the old adage - "1 bad egg...". The few who do it (or have done it) have made life harder for the rest of the honest people.

inspiredsports

There is not a problem when a prospective employer discriminates, if you actually understand the dictionary definition of the word.

The entire interviewing and hiring process is a series of discriminatory events.

If an employer requires an applicant to be over 21 years of age or over, he is discriminating.

Other examples:
High school graduate
College graduate
Degree in specific field
Never convicted of a felony
Able to be bonded
Physically fit enough to lift an 80 pound fire hose, pass a bar exam, complete medical residency, etc., etc.
Able to pass a polygraph
US citizen
On and on and on and on.

Why do you even post **** like this?

Danny Tse

inspiredsports wrote: »

The entire interviewing and hiring process is a series of discriminatory events.

If an employer requires an applicant to be over 21 years of age or over, he is discriminating.

Other examples:
High school graduate
College graduate
Degree in specific field
Never convicted of a felony
Able to be bonded
Physically fit enough to lift an 80 pound fire hose, bar exam, medical residency, etc., etc.
Able to pass a polygraph
US citizen
On and on and on and on.

Why do you even post **** like this?

The "requirements" for a certain job you posted may be of relevance to that particular job, whereas whether one is currently employed is not.

inspiredsports

Danny Tse wrote: »

The "requirements" for a certain job you posted may be of relevance to that particular job, whereas whether one is currently employed is not.

Of course it is. And who are you to tell the prospective employer what their criteria should be?

Let me ask you a personal question.

Let's pretend you found out yesterday that you need emergency heart surgery, and there are 2 cardiac centers at the end of the street.

Hypothetically, one is the Cleveland Clinic, and the other is staffed by people who were unemployed up until last week (but they all have proper credentials).

Which facility do you choose? But wait, your state legislation just passed a law that you can't choose, and your case has been assigned to the newbs.


And don't tell me, "Oh, well that's different . . . ".

snow

inspiredsports wrote: »

Of course it is. And who are you to tell the prospective employer what their criteria should be?

Let me ask you a personal question.

Let's pretend you found out yesterday that you need emergency heart surgery, and there are 2 cardiac centers at the end of the street.

Hypothetically, one is the Cleveland Clinic, and the other is staffed by people who were unemployed up until last week (but they all have proper credentials).

Which facility do you choose? But wait, your state legislation just passed a law that you can't choose, and your case has been assigned to the newbs.


And don't tell me, "Oh, well that's different . . . ".

That entire analogy is whacked. Either your qualfied or your not. Besides insurace companys allready decide where you can and cant go to get medical care.



REGARDS SNOW

inspiredsports

snow wrote: »

That entire analogy is whacked. Either your qualfied or your not. Besides insurace companys allready decide where you can and cant go to get medical care.



REGARDS SNOW

Absolutely NOT whack, and NOT true! THOUSANDS fly here to Cleveland every year for heart surgery.

They DISCRIMINATE between what is available, and choose based upon that discrimination.

So what would your choice be? The Cleveland Clinic or the new clinic ???? (and if your insurance company decides, they are discriminating).



P.S.: "your" is possessive and, you're is the contraction for "you are"

ohskigod

sorry Inspired, put me in the "that analogy is stupid" camp

any medical facility is going to have at least some new people in it, and some people who might have been unemployed, even in this economy.

you're also comparing a company picking one employee and one person choosing an ENTIRE FACILTY of people who were just employed? not even possible

A better analogy is, facility be damned, would you choose a cardiologist who was unemployed for a while but recently hired....or a cardiologist who has been in constant employment. Can you really assume which is going to do a better job based only on that factor? didnt think so, you need to check into other things.

the guy that was unemployed might have been on a sabatical somewhere taking a break, but might also have a stellar record of previous surgeries while the constantly employed guy might have a dodgy surgery record.

ohskigod

inspiredsports wrote: »

THOUSANDS fly here to Cleveland every year for heart surgery. because there is nothing else to do in this god forsaken sh*thole

aaaaaaand fixed



but on a serious note, if you can't understand why allowing companies to discriminate solely on if they are currently employed or not currently....in this economy, would virtually create a brand new underclass, then apparently the terrorists have won

there are things you can be choosy with (education, employment HISTORY and experience, overall ability) but not things like Race, Gender, how you look, and if you happen to be unemployed. I can go into a long schpiel about why that is, but it's simply douschebaggery. not a hard concept to absorb

inspiredsports

ohskigod wrote: »

sorry Inspired, put me in the "that analogy is stupid" camp

any medical facility is going to have at least some new people in it, and some people who might have been unemployed, even in this economy.

you're also comparing a company picking one employee and one person choosing an ENTIRE FACILTY of people who were just employed? not even possible

A better analogy is, facility be damned, would you choose a cardiologist who was unemployed for a while but recently hired....or a cardiologist who has been in constant employment. Can you really assume which is going to do a better job based only on that factor? didnt think so, you need to check into other things.

the guy that was unemployed might have been on a sabatical somewhere taking a break, but might also have a stellar record of previous surgeries while the constantly employed guy might have a dodgy surgery record.

Obviously I stated an extreme, but for a string of logic to be valid you need to run it out to the ends.

In audio, we discriminate CONSTANTLY, and we want the freedom to do so.

As soon as you go down the path of allowing someone else to dictate what is good for you, then that path eventually reaches an extreme you are unhappy with.

Speaking to those unemployed folks who were not granted an interview BECAUSE they were unemployed; guess what? If they were hired by a company that thought that way, I propose it would only be a short period of time before they were miserable in the position.

What's the logic in "you don't want me, so you have to hire me?"

And how do so many fields get away with requiring recertification and continuing education units?

ohskigod

inspiredsports wrote: »

What's the logic in "you don't want me, so you have to hire me?"

It's the same reason why that, while we have freedom, we have laws that limit that freedom for the betterment of society. Of course some will argue that laws can be too infringing or too lenient, but there has to be a line somewhere.

it's the same reason why you cant have a business that says "I only serve white people". while you can argue that he should have the freedomn as it is his business, it is still a business that is part of a civilized society and lines have to be drawn. the argument of "why do business if they dont want me " falls flat.

in all honesty if only one business did it it probably wouldn't be worthy of a law, but it was becoming a very odd trend that was spreading, to the detriment of society (or at least heading in that direction) and that is why some out laws on the books to prevent it, including a very conservative governor in NJ apparently. and he was right to do so.

besides, if we make the unemployed unhireable, how am I gonna talk **** about the lazy occupy wallstreet folk? ;-)
that new trend if unchecked would make them RIGHT!!!!

inspiredsports

OK, here's the freedom part.

I am an employer, but I will not hire anyone not currently employed. I will simply stop excercising my right to free speech and publishing that in my help wanted ads.

To cover my ****, I'll interview a few unemployed folks, (but I'll raise prices to cover my loss of productivity wasting this additional interview time).

If I'm large enough to be targeted and sued, I will close the company (it's a corporation/separate entity with few assets beyond making payroll) and lay off current employees so their welfare can come out of your pocket.

I am simply sick and tired of "occupy Wall Street" minded folks trying to tell me how to think and act.


And by the way, if I ever need heart surgery, I will not hire an unemployed surgeon to make the repairs.

wz2p7j

Morals aside, I don't think there's a law against it, so companies can do as they please. As a business owner, I was trying to think of some way to exploit this myself.

It's really better to pick up some qualified person out of work who is so happy to get a job they'll work their behinds off for you. On the other hand, ahem, we've picked up a few where it's pretty easy to see why they were previously unemployed.

In the end, it's a business. I don't give a crap if you're unemployed and can't feed your kids. I gotta feed my kids too, so I need the best employees on board in my company to survive. That's why it's called a "for profit" business, it ain't no charity, sorry. A lot of working class people don't understand that.

Chris

inspiredsports

ohskigod wrote: »

. . . but there has to be a line somewhere . . . post #15

If you look it up, I think you'll agree that meets the dictionary criteria for being discriminatory

mrbigbluelight

Sometimes words have conotations beyond their mere dictionary definitions.

"Discrimination" is one. "Bias" is another.
Typically, "discrimination" and "bias" are both considered negative but as you have correctly pointed out, IS, we all do it everyday.

With music and gear, one can show absolutely no discrimation by choosing a Mattel Close-N-Play with a SoundDesign "amplifier".
That shows NO "discrimation", and in this case, no "discrimination" is bad.
Or, one could show a boatload of "discrimination" by choosing a VPI TT, Bryson stack of 28B SST 2 mono's, pre-'s, DAC, etc.
That shows a lot of "dicrimination" and is "good" (also shows a fat wallet).

So, it's true we all take part in discrimination everyday. When it reaches a certain level based on certain criteria, though .... well, that's when it's bad.

One can show

inspiredsports wrote: »

.What's the logic in "you don't want me, so you have to hire me?"

It depends on WHY you don't want me.
If your choice, as employer, is based on my race, color, sex, or creed, than WE the people have decided that that's not right. More exactly, it's WRONG.
And we're not going to let you do it. Don't like it ? Move to China.

I agree with Jstas (:eek:) that this would appear to be a problem with HR folks having their heads up their rearends.

BTW: discrimination against Canadians (even in Canada) is okay because ..... well .... you know.

inspiredsports

snow wrote: »

. . . either your (you're) qualfied or your not . . . post #10

If you look it up, I think you'll agree that meets the dictionary criteria for being discriminatory

inspiredsports

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Sometimes words have conotations beyond their mere dictionary definitions.

"Discrimination" is one. "Bias" is another.
Typically, "discrimination" and "bias" are both considered negative but as you have correctly pointed out, IS, we all do it everyday.

With music and gear, one can show absolutely no discrimation by choosing a Mattel Close-N-Play with a SoundDesign "amplifier".
That shows NO "discrimation", and in this case, no "discrimination" is bad.
Or, one could show a boatload of "discrimination" by choosing a VPI TT, Bryson stack of 28B SST 2 mono's, pre-'s, DAC, etc.
That shows a lot of "dicrimination" and is "good" (also shows a fat wallet).

So, it's true we all take part in discrimination everyday. When it reaches a certain level based on certain criteria, though .... well, that's when it's bad.

One can show

It depends on WHY you don't want me.
If your choice, as employer, is based on my race, color, sex, or creed, than WE the people have decided that that's not right. More exactly, it's WRONG.
And we're not going to let you do it. Don't like it ? Move to China.

I agree with Jstas (:eek:) that this would appear to be a problem with HR folks having their heads up their rearends.

BTW: discrimination against Canadians (even in Canada) is okay because ..... well .... you know.

I think there must be something in the the above that is discriminatory

inspiredsports

I'm calling my Congressman. We need legislation to control Club Polk . . . too damn much discrimination .

tonyb

Interesting discusion and alot of valid points. Must say though, if you think discrimination doesn't take place in almost every aspect of the working society, best think again. However, it has become illegal to do so based on skin color, age, sex, sexual preference, and a host of protected classes thrown in to boot. Is what they are doing in the OP's original post illegal ? Not as far as I can see. Is it **** practice ? Maybe. Could be other reasons we are not aware of. I still defend their rite to do so anyway.....for as long as that lasts.
One reason off the top of my head is those who are long term unemployed tend to stay that way. In other words, they may take the job for 6 months to garnish another 2 years off on the welfare rolls. Of coarse thats painting with a broad brush but as an employer who has to watch every penny these days, I can understand the thinking behind it. You get 3 or 4 new hires who do this and your paying the unemployment on all those people without a solid person in the position yet. Trust me, I know people who do this crap for a living. One only has to look across the pond at Europe to see what this mentality does. Employers are afraid to hire in some countries because they can't fire them and if they do they are paying alot longer than 2 years. So we manifest this mentality here without asking the real questions of our leaders. Where's the Jobs ? What are you doing to entice companies to come here, to invest here ? Force people to work for that welfare check and I bet you could reduce your states labor costs by huge margins. Can't think of one state that wouldn't want to save a buck these days.

ohskigod

inspiredsports wrote: »

OK, here's the freedom part.

I am an employer, but I will not hire anyone not currently employed. I will simply stop excercising my right to free speech and publishing that in my help wanted ads.

To cover my ****, I'll interview a few unemployed folks, (but I'll raise prices to cover my loss of productivity wasting this additional interview time).

If I'm large enough to be targeted and sued, I will close the company (it's a corporation/separate entity with few assets beyond making payroll) and lay off current employees so their welfare can come out of your pocket.

I am simply sick and tired of "occupy Wall Street" minded folks trying to tell me how to think and act.


And by the way, if I ever need heart surgery, I will not hire an unemployed surgeon to make the repairs.

thank you for reminding me I am not as hard right as many of my friends think I am

people do things to circumvent laws and social mores all the time, this aint new ..... they're called f&*king @ssholes.

yes, many are unemployed because they are shiftless layabouts, but many are not. If you ever hit a run of bad luck, it is not going to treat you well with your mentality. you smack of elitist ****, and that is coming from someone who can come off as an elitist **** on occasion so that is worthy of note.

understand I am not calling you an elitist ****, I dont know you well enough....I'm just saying youre coming of like one

sucks2beme

Anymore, you can get laid off because of outsourcing, or just plain mass-layoffs.
If a whole division gets toasted, you can be the best employee yet get the axe.
Tonyb, there are parts of the country where there's almost no jobs to be had.
PERIOD. There's a waiting list at the 7-11. That's where a lot of the current
long term unemployed are at. Having good skillsets is useless if nobody is hiring.
I know a lot of people my current company could hire to help out, but instead have
chosen warm bodies in India. It's not saving any money using these guys.
They screw up everything they touch and we have to do their jobs and ours.
A couple of good people would go a long way. But the people in charge have chosen
their path, and it's quantity over quality. I'm sure customers are going to leave
because of it, and the cycle repeats. Sorry Obama, all the jobs created aren't here.
And it pisses me off.

Outfitter03

Inspiredsports as an employer, or as "Job Creator" as they have recently been coined, what advice would you give to people who have been let go due to the economy downturn in finding a job? You have made many valid points on why as the decision maker that it is in your best interest not to hire unemployed folks. IMHO I don't disagree with your logic or your right as a small employer to make this call.

So if there are mostly like minded individuals making these decisions at other companies, how are the unemployed suppose to get back on track? Do you believe we are now past the tipping point and when the unemployed have gone past the end of their unemployment benefit period what do you believe these people should do to survive?

As a Vet I have encountered this kind of employer choice (discrimination?) throughout my career. There is going to be a flood of battle hardened troops returning to the job market in the next 3 years as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. These will all mostly be young men and women that are unemployed due to no fault of their own and many employers will see them as damaged goods due to their training, potential disabilities and PTSD. Are these brave young men and women going to come home to a life on the streets in our cities. The current statistics on unemployment rates of Vets are saying Yes!

cnh

I'm not even concerned with such a requirement as discrimination. It's simply UNTRUE. As John and Lou and a number of others suggest. Let me tell you, when we have a job opening we can get 75-100 applicants. It is VERY EASY to weed out about 75% of those instantly, there is no great CON you can pull on someone who has been in your field for over 25 years!

So you mean to tell me that LAWYERS can't weed out the applicants they are trying to "deny" as "easily". I call BS! If they can't they should have their credentials revoked because they 'suck' at what they do. So then we are left with what OTHER reason we could use to institute such a policy.

Personally, I like the "lose one's skills ploy". I hate to say this, but any reasonably intelligent and educated individual who is willing to work hard can probably learn almost ANY job skill in a month's time or less and perform it as well as someone who has been doing it for years. I say this because MOST jobs (and there are exceptions of course--highly specialized professional skills and or mechanical skills, etc.) do not require the skills of a Nobel Laureate and I, myself have learned to do things as a Grad Student that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with my degrees in a period of a week or two?

I know at least a half-dozen people who are, as Lou suggests above, "hard-working", "reliable", incredibly "educated", have "two decades of quality experience in their field", and are as good as ANYONE and BETTER who is NOW employed in their field....but who are in their 50s and would be an EXPENSIVE hire, who have been out of work for the last half-year to year!

It DISGUSTS me. It really does. Job Creators. OK, where are they, already!! I don't want to get political here. But you could do EVERYTHING that some parties want and you'd still have NO jobs for these people.

The entire discussion disgusts me (I don't mean you guys). I spent a year in the PRC (China). And I can tell you where American companies are job creators pretty easily. Unless U.S. workers plan to live on 160-320 dollars a month in the U.S. you're not going to see "any" new jobs here ever again!

cnh

tonyb

This is where your employment history comes into play. Nobody here is saying that the stated practice is one size fits all. As the person doing the hiring has to use common sense in their approach. To deny an interview just on the sole basis of being unemployed in my judgement is wrong, not illegal however. The employer still has the option to say no in the end. Ever see in ads the phrase "only qualified candidates need apply"? Employers don't want to waste time interviewing unqualified candidates. This particular employer determined that current employment was a qualification. Is that a moral bankrupt way of doing buisness ? Could be, I dunno enough about them to make that call. Then again, if we all made morals a qualification in our employer when looking for jobs, nobody would be working. Definately 2 sides of the issue, but instead of crying about it, look elsewhere for employment.

cnh

I don't disagree. I just find it a LAZY way of doing things. Especially when we have to weed through hundreds of applicants because we think it is the "fair" thing to do. As for looking for employment elsewhere, may I suggest Asia. There are LOTS of jobs there for any American who wishes to resettle in that part of the world. I had several job offers while I was working in China even though I had work back in the U.S.? That's where "new" jobs bring profits, not here. It's no longer that profitable to employ people in the USA. And I'm not going to get into the politics of that because there is no need to. The stats speak for themselves. The rest, the solutions, are mere "rhetoric".

That's enough for now. Some of my closest friends are in the underemployed or unemployed category so this is too sensitive an area for me.

cnh

dkg999

Using current employment as a requirement for a job is just bad practice. It really says look, our HR is out of bandwidth and can't deal with the candidate screening process so we are going to short-cut that and just assume if you're still employed at this point you must be doing something right. You eliminate people who lost their jobs and went back to school to increase their knowledge and skills, those who just decided to take a break and could afford to do so (we'll keep how they might of funded that out of it), and those of us that just decided to take an extended break on our own dime.

Jstas

tonyb wrote: »

Then again, if we all made morals a qualification in our employer when looking for jobs, nobody would be working. Definately 2 sides of the issue, but instead of crying about it, look elsewhere for employment.

But your employer has an ethics department that will gladly hold your feet to the fire if you so much as make a simple phone call, long distance, to your wife to find out about your flooded out house while you're traveling and away from your family 'cause you sacrificed supporting them in lieu of threats of termination from your company if you weren't in Poughkeepsie on Monday. If that phone call violates corporate policy on phone usage for personal use, they'll run you up the river.

Do as I say, not as I do.

The issue is that if this kind of practice is allowed to propagate and become status quo, number one, if you lose your job, might as well immigrate to China 'cause you'll never work here again. Number two, if this becomes status quo, there is no "looking elsewhere" because "elsewhere" will be the same as every other place you looked. Unless "elsewhere" includes China, Mumbai or Canadia or something. Again, better start learning Mandarin.

We **** about jobs leaving this country and the state of our economy, tax situations, national debt loads and everything to do with macroeconomics. Yet when it comes to the microeconomics, like you're population's employment status and individual employment, that drives the macroeconomics that keeps your country afloat financially, we're willing to roll over and take it like a man when it comes to discriminatory practices like this that have little acceptable justification and in reality no real leg to stand on. Morally, ethically or otherwise.