Unemployed need not apply

[Babe_Ruth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/b...-E-FB-SM-LIN-HWA-072611-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Should employers be allowed to preemptively eliminate the currently unemployed from job consideration?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Shwa]

To be honest, this is one hell of a loop hole that the employer has been able to find and use to their advantage. One, it doesn't violate any policies with Equal Employment Opportunity law/act because its not discriminating against the person, just their time of being unemployed. Also, they're only asking for employees who are current in their work so there will be less of a training process for new additions to their company.

On the downside though, it's pretty messed up that a lot of equally qualified people are unemployed but still can't land a job because of the stigma or the time they have been unemployed. There are a lot of people struggling to find a job that matches what they're best at/what they studied for, but now that some states are picking up this kind of hiring method, its going to make things a lot harder for them to find jobs.

I honestly think its harmful to only want people currently employed, would be a backlash to those coming out of school or training with no experience but their school knowledge.

~Shwa

 

[Pugz]

Ugh, that's almost the same as 'previous experience essential'! How are the Unemployed supposed to get back into work when employers ARE discriminating against the long term unemployed.

 

[Smelnick]

It's one of those things that just doesn't make sense. What about people who are newly trained for the field? They obviously aren't currently work, nor have experience. How do employers expect to employ someone when they have such rigid hiring expectations. If anything, the law needs to step in, so as to save the companies from themselves.

 

[Merc]

Legally, I can't see a problem with it and to play devil's advocate I could see a few reasons why this would be a requirement. However with the current state of the economy it is extremely frustrating to see want ads with this kind of fine print so to say. I remember being fresh out of school and the biggest problem was that you would frequently see "entry level" and "experience required" (which is doubly frustrating to an English major like myself who simply can't figure out that contradiction) so job hunting sucked.

The main, driving force in the American economy is the paycheck of the average citizen and without paychecks, there is no economy to put it as simply as possible. If employers are tightening their requirements then they can expect their profits to continue to fall (unless you're one of those massive corporations that got millions and billions back in tax refunds this year and years past then you're fine) since all you'd be hiring are people already contributing to our markets.

 

[sunrise]

It is very much a catch 22 situation and has been for years. Employers want people to have experience but how can please have experience if they are never given a chance?

Many years ago I was living in a small town having just left college going no-where. I moved to a city I knew very little about and knew no-one just for a job and have moved from one position to another by working hard and looking for other things. Now I am not saying that people are not doing this but it is possible I think to move yourself up the ladder, it is not easy but it is possible.

 

[Merc]

Volunteering is the easiest way to get experience, but that's only if you can afford it. Ultimately, it comes down to the costs of living.

 

[Pugz]

Yeah, that's the other Catch 22.

'How about volunteering?'
'You gonna give me extra money towards travel fairs?'
'...No."

And if the employer you volunteer for pays your travel expenses, then (over here) they dock it from your benefits.

 

[shelgarr]

You know the old saying "its easier to get a job if you have a job". These days though, the unemployed don't have as much of stigma. There's so many of us! Most everyone knows it the massive cutbacks as a result of the economy. That is something that is out of an employee's control. Recently though in my quest to get regular employment (versus contracting) is that the other candidates had "recent" experience. Perhaps that is what employers are looking for as opposed to someone that has gotten "rusty".

 

[CaptainObvious]

There are literally tens of thousands of corporations and businesses that didn't accept any bailout money that are very profitable. That said, should employers be able to preemptively eliminate the currenly unemployed? Of course they should be able to. Whether they should do it or not is a separate question, but of course they are allowed to do so if they wish.