Unemployed need not apply

What resources?

Just put out a company-wide memo: Do NOT put in any job ad that unemployed people need not apply.

 

Does anyone do that anyway?

 

This particular issue isn't about increasing the number of jobs in this country. It isn't about re-ordering who gets hired. It's about making sure there's an equal playing field for all those applying for that job.

And Baron's point about enforcement is spot on. Just the mere fact that there is a policy or regulation on the point will guarantee that probably 80% of American businesses (probably more) will comply on their own--no enforcement needed.

Let's say the fine for non-compliance is $100 per applicant per job opening. That's going to be really expensive, really quick for a company. Much like the I-9 penalty of $1,000 per employee for an incorrect or missing I-9, you can set this up where it almost enforces itself--it's too costly not to comply with.

 

You have more faith in administrative agencies than I do, C_K.

 

This is not surprising. It wasn't suprising when a similar report came out in spring of 2010. Employers would prefer to bring in new employees who are employed. It's a short-cut way of limiting the number of applicants and whittle down who they really want. An example: a position opens at Company E. Human Resources, the hiring manager of the department, and the department wants to bring someone in with experience, but they don't want to comb over more than 50 candidates for the gig, for fear that 200+ will send in their resume.

HR crafts the opening by adding the "you must be currently employed" line there to eliminate the pool to their own liking. In a back-handed way, it's a lazy, and easy, way to fill an opening.

My advice to those who are unemployed (for I am one): apply for the opening anyway, as a way to flip the bird at them. That's the employer's loss if they don't want to bother interviewing someone who is unemployed and could be the right fit for the job. HR and the hiring manager will be the ones answering to the boss if they hire someone who is currently employed, and that person is a screw-up or not the right fit.

That shell game has been played since the recession, so this is an old story to me.

Let me add to what Dick mentioned about the gaps between jobs. Those gaps can be filled by volunteering, doing some short-term work, anything that will explain to an employer what you have been doing between that time, besides looking for employment.

Some (and I stress, some) employers will look favorably at what you are doing to stay busy, hone your skills, and keeping up with technology and new trends in the profession/career you are in, or in a new career that you want to go into.

Companies and employers have developed a cutthroat approach to hiring. They feel that they are saving money on not hiring a talented unemployed, in the idea that "oooh, we have to teach, show, and educate this person on how to do the job." Bullshit. Most of us by now know how to adapt and learn quickly in different workplaces.

The supervisor or the person in charge feels he has no time to show the newbie the ropes and babysit them. They don't need babysitting. Give them the basics: what their responsibility is, hand them the tools, and give them the freedom to ask questions to you or anyone. They're not being annoying. They want to learn and be the best at it. They're trying to earn a paycheck just like you. In other words, they're saving your ass and saving the company $$ by being efficient and doing their best.

To employers, it's all about the bottom line and being discriminatory, in terms of, who is the "perfect fit" for them. "Perfect" meaning never been laid off, never had a problem with an employer, clean credit rating, this, this, and that. HR is the "insurance" of the company. They see to it that the less red flags (unemployment, criminal records), etc. there is on a candidate, the less risk the company takes in hiring the person.

In essence, everyone is protecting their own asses, individually. Some of them know that they don't want to be in the same shoes as the guy or gal being escorted out of building with their stuff in a box after being told "you're no longer needed here".

All of that still doesn't guarantee that they hired the right person. Just the person who poses the less problems and financial risk to them.

This is coming from someone who has spent nearly 2 years "on the beach" and listening to others on the sidelines as well. The perspective of a unemployed person, especially from the corporate middle-management world, is an eye-opener. They hold nothing back most of the time. Unemployeds are not bums or lazy bastards swilling shots of brandy every night complaining about their current status. We want to be back in the rat race. It gives us the sense of community (sans a few office jerks) and a purpose to work.

 

Human Resources Directors have surpassed insurance salespeople, car salespeople and lawyers as far as I'm concerned. I went through a couple of job interviews last year where the TSA coulda' learned a few things from these people.