Noticing (Unemployed need not apply)

MontagueVandervort

jeremywatts2005 wrote: »

Here is how you remedy that situation. Start a LLC and get a business license. I think the last time I did it I paid like $20 or $30 something like that. Did the LLC stuff online didn't cost much. Now you are a CEO running your own business. I did it when I got laid off in the early 2k's. Then when someone would ask me what I was doing out of work I would say I am not out of work. I am operating my own business doing consulting. Then you are never unemployed and there will never be gaps in the resume

But were you actually doing consulting? If not, then you are still unemployed as you aren't working nor getting income. I think I would change that smile at the end to a if this is so.

NetworkingStudent

DatabaseHead wrote: »

You are speaking with emotion not facts. Like Paul mentioned only in certain states.



This is false others on here have seen it as well.

The original question, why companies choose to do this.

I haven't heard of this trend for awhile now.

However, I do remember this was a trend during the recession.


Unemployed? 5 Reasons Companies Won't Hire You - CBS News

The preference for hiring the already employed has gone on for years and years.

Stereotypes are alive and well.
We've all seen the stories about people being fired for sleeping on the job, stealing, being rude to customers or siphoning off thousands of dollars into private accounts. Somehow our psyches seem to think that those are the only reason people lose jobs. Even people who have been laid off in the past somehow thinks that they were the exceptions, not the rule. Unemployed=big problem, so you're not taken into consideration. It doesn't matter that the higher unemployment is, the more likely you are to have good people unemployed, this stereotype persists.

Companies are inundated with applicants.
The New York Times reports that even fast food chain Pollo Tropical requires people to be employed before considering them. Normally, fast food outlets are the first place you'd think would be hiring the unemployed. But, the rising unemployment rate means that more and more people are trying to get any job. Companies don't like to hire people who want any job. They want to hire people who want this job. One way of cutting through the applicants is to eliminate the any job candidates, and these are most likely to be the unemployed.

Skills do deteriorate without use.
If you're a nurse, going 9 months without starting an IV means that you'll need some refreshers and extra help before you're up to speed again. If you're a statistician, going 12 months without doing a statistical analysis means you'll have to think a little bit harder to do that first one. Some jobs are more skill heavy than others. Some have higher learning curves than others. Companies want people who need the smallest amount of training possible.

p@r0tuXus

blatini wrote: »

I'm confused how you can defend filtering people by job status and then complain about companies hiring from certain schools...? Companies know that the requirements to enter certain schools are more strict than others so logically people who have attended those schools are smarter and harder working right? "It is, after all about finding the right people. The less time it takes to do that, the better."

For the record I think both are complete bullshit I just don't follow your logic and am curious.

Sure! Let me further break this down. I understand the logic behind, let's only hire people that are good enough to be in demand with the skills we're looking for because we want to move fast on these projects or maybe we're behind and we need to cover ground quickly. We can negotiate on pay for the right person to get up to speed as long as we get the right fit. To ME, that's about skills and picking the ripest fruit on the tree. I don't like it from an individual standpoint (and never said I did), but it makes sense from a logical standpoint for the company and to help the people all ready there to move quickly in the same direction. Again, based on skill and aptitude - not culture (tribalism).
　
The second example, is pure douchery and cliquiness (sp?). These places would pass over a more well-qualified candidate in favor of some despotistic agenda to "keep the blood pure," so to speak. They would rather huddle together and consolidate influence, opportunity, over things that have next to nothing to do with skill but maybe things like political ideals or who's daddy golfs with who's daddy. To use the tree analogy, not the ripest fruit, just the fruit in 'this particular area of the tree.' That, I'm afraid, I don't understand nor agree with.

UncleB wrote: »

- divide the candidates into several bundles and discard one bundle - these were unlucky candidates because you discarded them and you don't want to hire an unlucky candidate!
- give each one a score based on what they claim as the skills on the CV, but this relies on them being truthful. This however is unfair on those who did not write good CVs
- only chose employed candidates as these require another employer to have vetted the basic work readiness of the candidates in theory
- eliminate on some other criteria that you have a bias against - hard to prove at this stage if you excluded all funny sounding names or people from a certain part of the country. I know this is illegal but it is still all too common and is very hard to prove.

The essence of this whole thread.


And then...

UncleB wrote: »

It isn't fair, but then neither is life. Some of us do what we can to influence things for the better, but the sad thing is that the econoics of it don't support the right thing.

It's the same sort of premise as the issue of kids with college debt just out of school looking for jobs. Can't get a job without experience and can't get experience without a job. Unpaid internships don't allow you to survive, even though you're contributing to society (and the company's performing ability to reap profits), but you still have to consume to sustain. Utter bullsh!it and a ridiculous self-defeating paradox.

TechGromit

DatabaseHead wrote: »

You are speaking with emotion not facts. Like Paul mentioned only in certain states.

I thought you could sue for any kind of discrimination, like when a family filed a lawsuit again the "Boy Scouts of America" for kicking their transgender son out of the scouts. The Boy Scouts is a private organization, they in theory they should be able to set membership requirements and be immune from discrimination lawsuits against it based on membership requirements. While the Boy Scouts may ultimately have won the suit (they backed down and allowed the child in the scouts) defending against lawsuits is a costly proposition, even if your in the right.

DatabaseHead wrote: »

The original question, why companies choose to do this.

Stay on topic, Luke, use the force, Stay on Topic.

It's pretty simple actually, Companies figure if no one else wants you, then you must suck, we don't want you either. It's a narrow view of the world, there's all kinds of reasons people find themselves unemployed. The company implodes like Enron and Lehman Brothers, Layoffs, cross country moves, they just got out of jail after serving time for killing there last boss....

DatabaseHead

Employment discrimination is set to protect, against sex, race, religion, national origin, age and physical disabilities. Not whether you are employed or not........

Being unemployed is most certainly not a protected class.

As long as the private sector doesn't breach these listed above, they are pretty much untouchable. Of course there are state level government, so this would be a state by state case, in that case you could be 100% correct.

MontagueVandervort

TechGromit wrote: »

I thought you could sue for any kind of discrimination

Not "any kind of discrimination", no.

Example: In some states you can be told to leave a restaurant because you're ***. It's completely within the law, and there isn't anything you can do about it (except raise cane on social media and get the restaurant shut down) because you aren't in a federally "protected class" so state law applies.


Edit:
Didn't realize the word would be filtered out lulz. 3-letter word starting with g and ending with y.

SpetsRepair

This worries me to be honest, so I'm currently under a contract and it is set to expire in June at this point I'm worried I might actually end up without a job if they don't hire me and it might look bad if under a contract the company chose not to move forward and bring you in full time. At this time I am still applying for relevant work and looking around, not sure if this is bad or not but this might be something I just have to do.

UncleB

SpetsRepair wrote: »

This worries me to be honest, so I'm currently under a contract and it is set to expire in June at this point I'm worried I might actually end up without a job if they don't hire me and it might look bad if under a contract the company chose not to move forward and bring you in full time. At this time I am still applying for relevant work and looking around, not sure if this is bad or not but this might be something I just have to do.

This is employment 101 - always look after your own interests (because the employer will only look after theirs) and if you can get something more certain and/or better paying then go for it. You are the one who has to pay the bills at the end of the day so that is where your responsibiliy lies.

So long as you don't end up with a series of short term gigs it won't do your desirability any harm at all.

UncleB

p@r0tuXus wrote: »

It's the same sort of premise as the issue of kids with college debt just out of school looking for jobs. Can't get a job without experience and can't get experience without a job. Unpaid internships don't allow you to survive, even though you're contributing to society (and the company's performing ability to reap profits), but you still have to consume to sustain. Utter bullsh!it and a ridiculous self-defeating paradox.

It has been the norm for over a decade now and shows no signs of changing, so it isn't as if kid's don't know it is the landscape they face. They could be trying to get apprenticeships (do you have these in the US?) with more real world skills while learning IT on the side or volunteering to work for free while learning some skills via work experience (and studying on the side) all the time remaining at home on a low cost base.

What I do see ever more of is kids expecting to have an expensive laptop, flash mobile phone, big screen TV, X-Box and games while not earning. This coupled with the lack of experience of how hard you have to work to get on in life and how lightweight the workload of a student can be means they become accustomed to getting a very high standard of life without earning it - all through building debt.

It is a choice they make to be a student and build debt as they could easily get another job based on some fairly entry level certs and motivation and build from there - there are plenty of employers who would take on a motivated candidate in return for letting them learn while providing cheap labour. If the candidates can't find someone to take them on then they are not being very creative and are probably not that motivated or capable (or they live in a one-horse town in which case they need to move).

I digress - this is off topic now but I believe a lot of people are unemployed because they are just not willing to do what it takes to get employed again, whether in their chosen field or otherwise.

It would certainly raise my opinion of a candidate if I knew they had taken work as say a cook for 6 months because of a lull in the job market rather than sit at home surfing and complaining about the lack of jobs. Then again I'm from a different generation to most on here so you can discount me as a grumpy old man if you are sitting at home, unemployed and complaining about this post

p@r0tuXus

I recognize your observerations and cannot find any fault in their straightforward accuracy. Just because something is the norm, and life isn't fair, doesn't mean one has to like it to adapt and survive. I would think more would find it as inspiration to work around the barriers the system puts in place to find their success. For those who are leveraged in debt with no experience, few prospects locally and no reserves or savings (and for some no support from family for whatever reason) - the idea of moving may not only seem impractical but impossible short of being a wayward vagrant. I'm not downing on wayward vagrants, more power to them. I have preferred a different approach and encourage any to find their own ways of dealing with the inequities of those circumstances. It would have been nice to know going into college that the 01 tech bust would have left me without many lucritive job prospects but hey, some things you can't predict.

renacido

Repeat after me:

I WILL NEVER QUIT A JOB UNTIL I HAVE SIGNED AN OFFER LETTER AND HAVE BEEN CLEARED FOR HIRE BY MY NEXT EMPLOYER.

Repeat it until it sinks in. Tatoo it on your leg like the guy in Memento.

If you lose a job involuntarily, start looking for the next job IMMEDIATELY, no time for sucking your thumb.

If you have a good job - show up every day and do your best work.

Simple advice but I've never heard any better.

blargoe

I see it, but usually for longer term unemployed.

shimasensei

TechGromit wrote: »

I'd be very surprised to see that in actual print. it's a blatant discrimination that has class action lawsuit written all over it. While a company may practice it, they would never come right out and say it on a job ad.

Wow...I have not seen this personally. But I agree, this should be classified as a form of discrimination.

TechGromit

UncleB wrote: »

I digress - this is off topic now but I believe a lot of people are unemployed because they are just not willing to do what it takes to get employed again, whether in their chosen field or otherwise.

I completely agree with this statement. People are lazy or approach looking for work by just looking for help wanted ads in the morning and taking the rest of the day off. Looking for work is a full time job. When I was given notice I was getting laid off in 6 weeks, I immediately reached out to everyone I knew I was looking for work, I was able to land another job within 4 weeks at the same pay level and benefits. Many of my co-workers that were in the same situation took 3 weeks or more off to recover for the "shock" of losing there job. Others didn't want anyone at work to know, like it was some sort of secret, or they were embarrassed. Another co-worker thought it was "great" he took the summer off. (He was out of work for 17 months).

jamesleecoleman

Yea it is a full time job. After studying abroad again, it took me about 8 months to find a job FTE. I was only looking for tech jobs at the time. I think I had 4 interviews when I was really trying to get a job.

DatabaseHead

Just for the record, I THINK IT STINKS.

MontagueVandervort

Assumptions and stereotypes are exactly the reason why this even exists. I can understand them in a way. Afterall, I used to have them myself. Then I got into the whole human aspect of this after meeting so many people who have been unemployed longterm. Everything isn't as black & white as it seems and everyone isn't part of some moulded form mass. Different people become unemployed for different reasons and different people stay unemployed for different reasons. Everyone is an individual with their own story.

The ironic thing about all of this is if you stereotype the unemployed and hesitate to hire them and don't let them work because they're unemployed ... then they will always be unemployed.