Unemployed need not apply

NYT story on a seemingly unsavory aspect of job recruitment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=BU-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-HWA-072611-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

 

I read that this morning and wasn't particularly appalled, nor did I really find it unsavory. Nor surprising. I have always been told that gaps on a resume are a red flag.

 

Well yeah, and the story accounts for that, as well as the idea that early layoffs were the ones who were incompetent. Nonetheless, I'm sure there are people out of work through no fault of their own, and this sort of practice further penalizes them for it.

 

The hope would be that the buck has to stop somewhere, right? As people climb a step, someone at the bottom has an opening and no one to fill it except for the long-time unemployed.

What a mess. I need to learn more about job creation. I grew up in a house where my dad was regularly unemployed because of the nature of his job, and it did not frequently create a very happy home, that's for sure. I feel bad for all of the other children caught in the crossfire of this economy.

 

I believe there have been recent articles bringing this issue to light and how some advocate adding the "unemployed" as a class to protect under Equal Employment Opportunity.

 

I nearly posted this last night when I saw it.

But, am I crazy, or was a very similar article posted on another thread not too long ago? I searched for it, but couldn't find it.

But, I'd swear I remember it.

 

That's nuts.

I do know that they are stepping up the affirmative action obligations toward protected Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, which is a good thing.

 

Well you know what's going to happen as soon as Teabag/Wingnut Nation gets wind of that:

"MORE GUVVMINT REGULATIONS!! WE DARE NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR JOB CREATORS!! UNLEASH THE MAGIC OF THE MARKETPLACE!!!"

 

In this case, they'd be right, though. I can't see how you can in any practical way make the unemployed a protected class. Job history and experience is probably the No. 1 factor in hiring. And we're going to eliminate that?

Again: Nuts.

 

With an unemployment rate that has been at or around 10% for several years, this is a pretty lousy practice for companies to put in place. There's several ways to potentially address it from a carrot (enhanced tax credits for hiring the long term unemployed) to the stick (ban the practice).

Don't know the answer, but I know doing this is wrong--ethically and economically. It certainly doesn't help us as a country in terms of getting people back to work, and piling on more hopelessness and despair to people who've been out of work a long, long time is hardly a humane practice.

 

How so?

They aren't running a charity. They're running a business. People with employment histories are, presumably, more reliable employees who will return your investment. Every time? No. But in general, yes.

Would you hire Barry Bonds to DH for you right now? Or Albert Pujols?