Skip to main content

I bet these employers hold the belief (like so many judgmental job-holders in this country) that the unemployed are "lazy" - living on unemployment because they refuse to get jobs. And what they're doing here is really helping the situation :

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07...rm-jobless.html?_r=1

 

The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk

 

The unemployed need not apply.

That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer") only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

Unemployed workers have long suspected that the gaping holes on their rÉsumÉs left them less attractive to employers. But with the country in the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, many had hoped employers would be more forgiving.

“I feel like I am being shunned by our entire society,” said Kelly Wiedemer, 45, an information technology operations analyst who said a recruiter had told her that despite her skill set she would be a “hard sell” because she had been out of work for more than six months.

Legal experts say that the practice probably does not violate discrimination laws because unemployment is not a protected status, like age or race. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently held a hearing, though, on whether discriminating against the jobless might be illegal because it disproportionately hurts older people and blacks....

Given that the average duration of unemployment today is nine months — a record high — limiting a search to the “recently employed,” much less the currently employed, disqualifies millions.

The positions advertised with preferences for the already-employed run the gamut. Some are for small businesses, and others for giants, including the commercial University of Phoenix (which, like some other companies, removed the ads after an inquiry by The New York Times) or the fast-food chain Pollo Tropical. They cover jobs at all skill levels, including hotel concierges, restaurant managers, teachers, I.T. specialists, business analysts, sales directors, account executives, orthopedics device salesmen, auditors and air-conditioning technicians.

“It is really a buyer’s market for employers right now,” said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and the Urban Institute. One consequence is that the long-term unemployed will rack up even more weeks of unemployment, Mr. Holzer said, and will find it harder to make the transition back to work.

Even if Congress passed a measure forbidding companies from making current employment a requirement for job applicants, companies could still simply decide not to hire people who are out of work. Discrimination would be difficult to prove....

Last edited by Buttercup
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Sneaky employers will still find a way to discriminate, but at least he's trying:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...IQAn0gDXL_story.html

 

Jobs bill backed by Obama seeks to remedy discrimination against unemployed applicants

 

WASHINGTON — After two years on the unemployment rolls, Selena Forte thought she’d found a temporary job at a delivery company that matched her qualifications.

But Forte, a 55-year-old from Cleveland, says a recruiter for an employment agency told her she would not be considered for the job because she had been out of work too long. She had lost her job driving a bus.

“They didn’t even want to hear about my experience,” said Forte. “It didn’t make sense. You’re always told just go out there and get a job.”

Forte, scraping by now as a part time substitute school bus driver, is part of a growing number of unemployed or underemployed Americans who complain they are being screened out of job openings for the very reason they’re looking for work in the first place. Some companies and job agencies prefer applicants who already have jobs, or haven’t been jobless too long.

She could get help from a provision in President Barack Obama’s jobs bill, which would ban companies with 15 or more employees from refusing to consider — or offer a job to — someone who is unemployed. The measure also applies to employment agencies and would prohibit want ads that disqualify applicants just because they are unemployed.

But Obama’s bill faces a troubled path in Congress, as Republicans strongly oppose its plans for tax increases on the wealthy and other spending provisions. Should the bill fail, Democrats are sure to remind jobless voters that the GOP blocked an attempt to redress discrimination against them at a time when work is so hard to find....

The issue has gained more prominence as the unemployment level remains stuck over 9 percent and a record 4.5 million people — nearly one-third of the unemployed — have been out of work for a year or more....


Last edited by Buttercup

She could get help from a provision in President Barack Obama’s jobs bill, which would ban companies with 15 or more employees from refusing to consider — or offer a job to — someone who is unemployed.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How would that work exactly? Just more doublespeak that sounds good to people that don't bother to stop and think. There'd be no way, at least I hope, to force anyone to hire a person. I've heard it said all my working life that if you have a job you can find a job and not only have we all heard it, the statement has been made no matter who is in office.  BTW, plenty of democrats are business owners.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

She could get help from a provision in President Barack Obama’s jobs bill, which would ban companies with 15 or more employees from refusing to consider — or offer a job to — someone who is unemployed.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How would that work exactly?

Do you have to drawn a picture of everything? Or do you just pretend to not understand anything proposed by Obama so that you can oppose it?

Well jimi, as Butter pointed out in the first post:

Even if Congress passed a measure forbidding companies from making current employment a requirement for job applicants, companies could still simply decide not to hire people who are out of work. Discrimination would be difficult to prove..


How are you going to enforce it and how are you going to prove it? It's like the pre-existing condition exemption in health care, you can still be turned down simply becuase they don't want you. They can claim it had nothing to do with your previous heart attack or your asthma.

Do you have to drawn a picture of everything? Or do you just pretend to not understand anything proposed by Obama so that you can oppose it?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OK slick, draw me a picture showing how they can make an employer "consider or hire", anyone. Come on, get your crayons and get to it.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Do you have to drawn a picture of everything? Or do you just pretend to not understand anything proposed by Obama so that you can oppose it?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OK slick, draw me a picture showing how they can make an employer "consider or hire", anyone. Come on, get your crayons and get to it.

Since you are illiterate in basic English, I don't think pictures would work either. Your hatred of Obama has made you stupid. You will never understand anything that he supports, which is everything that you oppose. And for no rational reasons. I believe that we all know what your reasons are, and they have nothing to do with reason.

 

If Conservatives and religious people could be reasoned with, there would be no Conservatives or religious people.

I've been on both ends of the spectrum and Obama is not going to get anyone a job or anything else. You have to do this on your own merit, qualifications and experience. So you see bestworking its not about race or anything else its about doing what you have to do in order to provide for your family. I'm 50 years old and have had to move away from home to find steady employment so quit trying to race bait and man up. Its on you as an individual to make the best of your skills. Everyone gets the chance to get a free education some people make the best of it and some don't, thats not the Goverments fault that is again on the individual and the way they are raised.Stop looking for handouts and get the training and experience you need to provide for the family YOU make.Reality stinks don't it, wake up.

Do you have to drawn a picture of everything?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Read your own post and then get back to me on illiteracy. Why don't you explain it to me jimma? Why can't you explain it? Could it be you just want to argue and know what I said is true? How can obama or anyone force any employer to "consider" or hire anyone?

So you see bestworking its not about race or anything else its about doing what you have to do in order to provide for your family. I'm 50 years old and have had to move away from home to find steady employment so quit trying to race bait and man up

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What are you talking about? Race baiting? How do you get to that from my post?

 

 

"How would that work exactly? Just more doublespeak that sounds good to people that don't bother to stop and think. There'd be no way, at least I hope, to force anyone to hire a person. I've heard it said all my working life that if you have a job you can find a job and not only have we all heard it, the statement has been made no matter who is in office. BTW, plenty of democrats are business owners."

Clearly, some of you didn't:

a)  Read the article

b)  Comprehend the article

c)  Are stuck in LaLa Land, where businesses and corporations can do no wrong

 

For some of you "b" applies, but I'm going with "c" for the majority.  Apparently, y'all take no issue with employers refusing to hire the unemployed.  Your response is to go on and on with the "just apply yourself" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" catch-phrases.  And I'm sure y'all will continue to call those living on unemployment benefits, the ones who can't get hired because employers won't hire them, "lazy," too.  Sheesh!

Originally Posted by dbaskins1:

I've been on both ends of the spectrum and Obama is not going to get anyone a job or anything else. You have to do this on your own merit, qualifications and experience. So you see bestworking its not about race or anything else its about doing what you have to do in order to provide for your family. I'm 50 years old and have had to move away from home to find steady employment so quit trying to race bait and man up. Its on you as an individual to make the best of your skills. Everyone gets the chance to get a free education some people make the best of it and some don't, thats not the Goverments fault that is again on the individual and the way they are raised.Stop looking for handouts and get the training and experience you need to provide for the family YOU make.Reality stinks don't it, wake up.

============================================================================

 

Hello?!?!?!  Anyone home?  Did you read this part of the article?

 

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer") only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

 

Some of you don't get it.  It has nothing to do with "making the most of your skills" IF NO ONE WILL HIRE YOU SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WERE LAID OFF AND ARE NOW UNEMPLOYED, THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN.  Get it?

Originally Posted by b50m:

Read your own article, butters:

 

Even if Congress passed a measure forbidding companies from making current employment a requirement for job applicants, companies could still simply decide not to hire people who are out of work. Discrimination would be difficult to prove..

============================================================================

 

I acknowledged that by saying in my second post:  "Sneaky employers will still find a way to discriminate..."

 

The point that EVERYONE is missing is that it's wrong to not give someone a shot at a job just because he's been unemployed for a while, someone who lost his job as a casualty of the recession - in other words, NOT HIS FAULT.  On top of that, y'all continue to call these unemployed folks "lazy."  What the h*** are they suppose to do?!?!

Stuck in lala land describes you exactly. The question I ask is how and why you think employers should be forced to hire anyone. We have hired from the Alabama State Employment office a few times. Some of the applicants interviewed were sincerely wanting the job, some were obviously showing up because they wanted to make it appear they were looking for a job. One man smelled so bad that he almost ran us out of the building. My eyes were literally burning. I called the employment office and ask if they explained fully to this man what the job was, he would be meeting and serving the public, working with others, and good personal hygiene was very important. Now before you get all crazy and say blah blah blah, I want to stress that I know full well that this situation doesn't describe all the people looking for jobs. But what if we had been forced to hire this man? One reason employers hire people that are already working is because the majority of the time you are familiar with the company they work for, you know their work history and record, you know their work habits, and they suit perfectly the job you need filled. Ever heard of "head hunters"? Moving from one job to another to further yourself is no crime, hiring those that want to move up or change jobs is no crime either.

The point that EVERYONE is missing is that it's wrong to not give someone a shot at a job just because he's been unemployed for a while, someone who lost his job as a casualty of the recession - in other words, NOT HIS FAULT. On top of that, y'all continue to call these unemployed folks "lazy." What the h*** are they suppose to do?!?!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

First of all I don't think the meaning is clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No employer will turn down a good employee only because they have been unemployed for a while!!!!!!!!**********  That would be stupid!!!#$%^ Who called them lazy!!!!?????

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The point that EVERYONE is missing is that it's wrong to not give someone a shot at a job just because he's been unemployed for a while, someone who lost his job as a casualty of the recession - in other words, NOT HIS FAULT. On top of that, y'all continue to call these unemployed folks "lazy." What the h*** are they suppose to do?!?!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

First of all I don't think the meaning is clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No employer will turn down a good employee only because they have been unemployed for a while!!!!!!!!**********  That would be stupid!!!#$%^ Who called them lazy!!!!?????

============================================================================

 

It's apparently happening.  I didn't exactly make the story up.    And people on THIS forum quite frequently call the unemployed lazy.  Go back through the threads and you'll see it.

 

I'd hate to be so obtuse.  Geez!

Yes, it is happening, and it sucks. But it's an employer's market. They have so many candidates they can afford to be choosey.

Age, gender, and race are still used to deny employment even if they don't spell it out that way.  This is just one more in a long line of measures businesses use to get WHO they want, not necessarily who is the best qualified.

I'd hate to be so obtuse. Geez!

 

 

No, you'd rather take a story, slant it to mean republicans are to blame for it, and post like a drama queen. Yes or no, do democrats own businesses? Are they employers too? Are both democrat and republicans out of work today? And you will not answer my question about how you think they can, or why they should, force employers to hire people.

Originally Posted by b50m:

When did congress go to the Democrats?  2006?

============================================================================

 

Bush was still in charge.  If the tables were turned in this argument you'd be saying "Obama was in charge" and you know it (you've done it).  It's all a matter of perspective when you try and use it to win an argument isn't it?

I think the problem would be how would you prove it? Were you discriminated against because of long-term unemployment, being a woman, being over 50, being Asian, having previously drawn too high a salary? The list could go on. Then, assuming you won your suit, would you really want to work at that company in a hostile environment? I once heard of a woman who took a part time job at which she excelled, but her boss would not hire her permanently. Why? Her name was Dimple.

Originally Posted by Buttercup:
Originally Posted by b50m:

When did congress go to the Democrats?  2006?

============================================================================

 

Bush was still in charge.  If the tables were turned in this argument you'd be saying "Obama was in charge" and you know it (you've done it).  It's all a matter of perspective when you try and use it to win an argument isn't it?



 

A good spin from the democrats who blamed 9/11 on Bush, even though Clinton has been Pres for 8 years prior to the attack. So Obama can blame Bush forever, but nothing that happened on Bush's watch came from Clinton? The dot come bust? The housing crash?

 

Either everything follows from the previous admin or nothing does.

 

Hint- everything does.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×