I’m currently in Portland, Oregon and saw a news report on TV about this story. It concerns the growing practice of employers insisting that applicants must be currently employed. A California lawmaker, Democrat Mike Allen, wants to forbid this practice.
I understand why some unemployed workers might feel discriminated against when they see such ads. However, I also fully understand the position of the employers placing the “must be currently employed” tag in their ads. Fact is, with a large supply of available workers and a small demand for work, it’s most certainly an employers’ market right now. When advertising for lower-skilled jobs right now, an employer may very well be getting hundreds, if not thousands, of applications. All things being equal, if you have two applicants with equal skills and experience but one is employed and the other is not, most employers would logically feel it less risky to hire the employed person. That might not be “fair” but it is reality.
Congressman Allen can enact this law if he wants but it won’t make any difference. The employers insistent on the “currently employed” requirement will just be forced to accept all resumes but will then most likely discard those who are unemployed. All Allen’s bill will do is cost the companies more money, lowering their profits, and thus reduce the number of people they can hire. Another feel good law that accomplishes nothing of value. And further evidence why more government in our lives is a bad thing.
While I certainly oppose any law of this sort, there is nothing “logical” about preventing unemployed candidates from applying for a job with your company.
It is a silly, arbitrary measurement that in most cases has nothing to do with the candidate’s qualifications for the job.
If the company is receiving too many applications, they should utilize one of the many excellent recruitment tools on the market to assist them in filtering out the many unqualified candidates. Unemployed, however, does not mean unqualified.
There are certainly some exceptions (typically specialized fields and not the type that you cite above), but eliminating a significant portion of potential candidates based not on their skills/abilities but rather whether or not they have a current job is incredibly stupid.
Don’t get me wrong, I support the employer’s right to make stupid decisions, but please don’t try to describe this nonsense as “logical”.
The ol catch 22 just like out of school, “sorry you need some experience first”.
Now you’re 55 with lots of experience and no extra energy to dedicate.
It’s too bad there are 15 – 30 million illegal immigrants now in the food chain bidding you out of some work. They may not have your skills precisely, but it all trickles down or up somewhere along the dog eat dog system of life.
Lame game to play.
Better off having a long interview than putting up dumb walls.
Oh well, there’s always lying….
It’s stupid but there should be no law against the practice.
I can identify with the prospective employer making this call. Being unemployed generally indicates a lack of initiative….
I have had some experience with this…generally I noticed the new guy, having been unemployed even for sickness/injury seems to fall into the category of collecting pay just for showing up….but then I am biased about tattoos, body piercings, hangovers, chronic lateness, absenteism….
This reminds me of a law in Saskatchewan that forbids advertising a suite for rent and specifying that the applicant must be employed, in school, retired, etc.
The reason? It discriminates against those receiving welfare. One of my companies ran afoul of this law once: some busybody provincial employee from an unrelated department apparently spent his work time scanning the internet for ads that weren’t in compliance. Then instead of simply informing us so we could change our ad, he filed a full-fledged complaint.
Now our ads have to read some fool thing about “verifiable income” rather than employed.
I wouldn’t want to work for a company that advertised this sort of insane policy. They obviously have an inept H.R department with nothing better to do.
Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to. I think it gives regular people the heads up that these people really aren’t worth the problem.
Sasquatch – That’s ridiculous. Earlier this year, I had to lay off an excellent, long-term employee. Our business is contracting and I just couldn’t keep him any longer.
It was the first time that he had been unemployed after 20 years in the workforce (and 10 years with us). It took him almost four months to get back into the workforce. Yes, he could have taken a McJob during that short period, however that would have significantly impacted his ability to get his career on track.
Being laid off didn’t make him less qualified than when he was on our payroll, and he didn’t suddenly become more qualified when he found his new job.
Again, the story above indicates that the employer is refusing to accept applications from unemployed candidates. That is stupid and bad business, period. You can’t make an effective hiring decision if you are eliminating a broad swath of candidates based on criteria that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
(And, just to be clear, I do not think that the government should be doing anything about this. If an employer wants to recruit stupidly, it is none of the government’s business.)
The legal/financial risk long-term is less with hiring an unemployed person than with a person who is currently employed…qualifications being equal. If the labour contract ever enters the legal arena for any reason, “enticed away from last employer” may exacerbate any financial responsibility to the new employer.
Our company hired unskilled or semi-skilled labor and taught them what to do. So we hired a lot of people who didn’t really want to work, if we got 1 good worker out of 10 hires we were lucky. When it started costing real money to hire people due to gov’t regs etc. something had to change. We required photo ID and a drug screen, when our HR manager had all the paperwork together she stapled the upper left hand corner of the forms. A horizantal staple was a potential hire, a vertical meant don’t go there. BTW, The drug screen got rid of a bunch of losers. About 30% simply didn’t show up at the clinic and another 30% failed.
I can identify with the prospective employer making this call. Being unemployed generally indicates a lack of initiative….
or getting laid off. It’s dumb to limit the pool of applicants. Being employed is no guarantee of quality. I’ve worked around enough people to know that it’s not what you know, it’s WHO you know. Skills mean nothing and even more so today.
Recently looking for some staff, I wanted to add “Must be competent” to the advertisement. But HR wouldn’t let me.
So we added “{company name} supports diversity” instead.
RE: Jim’s point about it being none of the governments business.
I’d agree if the person wasn’t on EI or other assistance at the time but when they’re on public support and employers are preventing them from getting off then that changes. I’d never want to see an employer required to hire a specific candidate just to get them off the dole but to exclude someone without a bona fide occupational requirement is bad public policy and bad business.
Refusing employment opportunities to the unemployed? Am I missing something here?
How exactly does making the unemployed unemployable help the economy?
Perhaps some of you might seriously think about dusting off that old Alastair Sim “A Christmas Carol” DVD and giving it a watch.
A very Merry Christmas to you all!
Almost any controls on hiring practices are futile. People will find ways to hire those they wish to hire.
Sasquatch says: “Being unemployed generally indicates a lack of initiative….”
I hope you never find yourself drawing the short straw when your company “downsizes”. Many quality people are without jobs because their previous employers were cowards or idiots — letting good, productive workers go simply because someone else had more seniority. I was out of work for 4 months last summer due to that exact situation. In the current job market, in my city, with my skill set, it took 4 months to find a job. I did collect unemployment benefits which I have contributed to for 35 years of gainful employment. I did not feel guilty about it. But I was very happy to find a job with an employer who was happy to have found someone with my skills, currently employed or not.
Limiting your pool of potential employees is lazy. Pure and simple. There are as many people lacking initiative collecting paychecks as there are collecting welfare.
Lickmuffin:
What purpose would the phrase “Must be competent” serve in an ad?
I always try to strip out the fluff (“Must be a self-starting team player” blah, blah, blah) because I can never see it making any difference to anything.
The era of leisure has arrived.
Normal “employment” is being phased out: by offshoring to countries where the labor rate can be driven to zero, by automation where computers do the analytical work, and robotics where machines do the physical work.
“People” have become superfluous.
They have no value, either to the economy, or to themselves.
Consider work horses which once held great value in a more primitive economy.
Their numbers have been eradicated, and they have become mere ornaments in beer commercials.
Your “job prospects” will henceforth be improved only by a massive reduction in the number of useless slugs.
Like any other commodity, when you have an over-abundance, it’s value drops. Life is getting cheaper by the year. Get used to it.
Re: “Being unemployed generally indicates a lack of initiative….”
Back in early 1980’s when the recession hit big time, the geology consulting firm I was with laid off 16 out of 18 professional staff (i.e. non-partners). We all did short term contracting work interspersed with periods of job searching – so 89% of the geologists lacked initiative while looking for work?
Funny. I thought unemployment generally indicates a lack of a job.
But maybe this highly-paid, tatted-up guy is just biased against crotchety old crankpots.
Excuse me but what happens if you tear your ACL (blow out your knee) and while limping on said knee fall into a grease pit and break 4 ribs and sustain a life threatening concussion (via broken jaw etc)
and spend 2 years (1 surgery, and 2 pending) recovering?
Personal experience.
And being the “smartest guy in the room” before my wreck.
I know I have to start at the bottom again and I’m ok with that, but it’s like I have to prove everything I put on my resume all over again. Thankfully I’m 36 so I can but……
In the construction or logging business, being unemployed is a regular part of the industry,layoffs occur depending on the swings of the market, no fault of the workers or the companies that usually employ them.
Judging a prospect/tradesman by whether he has a job currently would be self-defeating.
Restricting your pool of potential employees for the reason stated on this post is short-sighted and poor business practice, for all the reason others have posted.
Sorry Kate I promised not to rant for a week but…
I was working to pay my way to OCS Air Force school in Quebec (was already accepted) when I got hurt.
Not looking for a pity party but if they would have flown me out of Comox AFB…..
Now I’m in it for me , and I have no doubt that a construction company will take me in bottom rung and let me rise on my skills. There’s pipelines and mining and drilling going on all over western Canada. I will be there, and I will profit.
I am the 50 % that will NEVER give up.
dwright out.
There are likely companies who favour hiring unemployed people (at least for some positions) on the theory that the unemployed will be willing to settle for worse working conditions at lower salaries.
All other things being equal, I’d hire the unemployed person. The one currently working has proven they are willing to quit and go somewhere else – which would mean a greater likelihood that they would quit on me and I’d have to spend more money hiring their replacement.
One only needs to look at Europe and Japan for an example of the “employed does not equal quality” in the workforce.
This is just a feel good policy by government fiat.
Makes them look like their doing something while appearing compassionate. It will make no difference. I agree with the folks who say just because you where laid off doesn’t mean your not a good worker. Especially in this economic climate.
In Alberta where begging for people with skills.
Some companies loss is another’s gain.
You get job hoppers who have no loyalty as well.
Just looking for a better deal.
Obviously, it’s a dumb policy but the proposed law is even dumber. Dumb and Dumber.
But clearly, dumb policies get punished in the free market. No need for a new law.
By unnecessarily limiting the field, the employer may well deliver the best candidate, who is temporarily out of work (a natural event), to his competitor.
Must have been fully-employed within the last 12 months would be dumb too, but less dumb.
I espressed an opinion…that doesn’t make me a bad person..just one with an opinion.
How many ads, have the phrase…..no more than X jobs in the last year?
I have noticed that some trucking companies have an average turnover of 3 months…drivers wise….
Then avoid hiring an older worker who may have 5-10 years before retirement……
Nobody said life was fair…
Piss tests are the way to go.
And random tests after hiring.
Sasquatch – I never said that you were a bad person, just that it was a demonstrably bad policy for a company to have.
“I never said that you were a bad person, just that it was a demonstrably bad policy for a company to have.”
Jim, you’ve haven’t “demonstrated” anything to anyone, only in your own mind. These companies are not doing this without reason. It’s a well thought-out strategy to maximize the $$ invested in recruiting and hiring. If you had any experience with HR on a large scale you’d have been privy to what is common knowledge in the industry. If companies thought it would be beneficial to view all of the apps equally, they would. This is common conservative/libertarian thinking and shouldn’t be difficult to grasp for an SDA commenter. They are playing the averages (or the curve) and have decided that it’s of greater benefit to do as they are doing and potentially lose a few good apps in the process.
The fact you can’t deal with this says more about you than the companies that are looking-out for their own interests.
Well Indiana, it just shows the general quality of the HR dept really. After all, why would I as a supervisor want someone to0 LAZY & UNINITIATED to sift through applications finding employees for me? Announcing to the world that you’re not willing to look a little deeper for that quality person is just plain stupid and counter productive.
You NEVER know where the nuggets lie, whether they are gold or booger.
Indiana
U study “statistics”, or maybe you took industrial engineering:-))))
“The evidence is beyond reproach, and that’s that you will have more success hiring someone who is already employed verses one who’s not, regardless of the sob story.”
Not necessarily true Indiana, and not always my own personal experience.I have hired and fired lots of people in my industry,and have found that sometimes the working guy who’s applied with my company did so because he was a misfit and I’m hiring someone else’s problem.
I’ve found that when I call the old employer,he’ll praise the guy to the skies,anything to get him the hell out of HIS company.
There’s no golden rule in hiring,the person doing the hiring has to have a good sense of who he’s dealing with,but even with years of experience and all the HR training in the world, the odd bad one can slip through.
BUT,to get back to the original post,no,the government should NOT regulate private companies’ hiring policy.
I have also hired and fired over several decades. If I did have a dud and he/she was looking for greener pastures, I would give the best resume I could muster without gagging. Anything to get rid of them. Usually worked. Had better luck doing my own interviews and going with gut instinct. Unemployment under current economic conditions in the USA would certainly not matter to me.
When a person; becomes one of the political class…the brain funtions but not normal…they think they have to make rules, and more rules…who cares if the rules are insane…next they will want comatose people to be high rise steel fitters…or air line pilots….if people want to hire only people that have a job now…so what…sooner or later they will have no choice….//
This is a bad law because it interferes with a company’s right to conduct its business (insofar as it is non-coercive and does not violate anyone’s rights) as it pleases.
However, I think it’s a very bad company policy. While some unemployed are lacking initiative, many productive people are laid off through no fault of their own. Their former company might be poorly managed, among other things.
And never underestimate the effects of government policies. The left always likes to keep unemployment high, so it can flog social programs for the unfortunates, because it believes the marginalized in society can be recruited as a substitute working class for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism. The proliferation of social programs and the taxes needed to pay for them are one of the major contributors to economic decline.
Rather than coming up with pointless polices like this that will take flak from thinking observers, companies should form a united front in calling for a laissez-faire capitalist economy, so they can properly get on with their purpose of raising the standard of living through production of goods and services.
Here’s the thing… most jobs don’t require a “nugget” as the bear suggests, and that’s the point you folks are missing. What’s usually needed is someone competent in the job, but it matters not who you specifically hire; therefore, when you have hundreds or thousands of resumes, you can afford to play the averages.
To answer gym’s attempted slam at my cred, I can say that I was in management for a large company for a few years; and, for most of the last decade I worked for a large engineering company and am familiar with some aspects of HR, as I’ll be an engineering manager hopefully in the near future. I can say this… and that’s that as a hirer, I was specifically trained to use those specific tools I mentioned above to assist in hiring. That was in the 90s, and you can take it for what it’s worth.
dmorris
Obviously there are anecdotal exceptions; but seriously, are you willing to go as far as saying that these companies “don’t” know what they are doing, and are simply “lazy”? IMO conservative/libertarian thought would dictate that those very companies would know best how to hire their own employees; and are more able to cope with the changing conditions in the economy. Better than the government anyways.
Case closed.
Merry Christmas Folks. (except gym lol)
Just kidding, Merry Christmas Gym.
Passing a law prohibiting the denial of job applications would be a stupid unnecessary intrusion into business.
Not accepting job applications from the unemployed is seriously stupid. They can throw them in the round file later.
dwright “Not looking for a pity party but if they would have flown me out of Comox AFB…..”
Was it typical military? – A corporal medic treated you for multiple compound fractures?
Should it be criminal? No, but the practice should be roundly mocked. Like many other “great ideas” out of the Human Resources “discipline”, it’s equal parts magical thinking and contempt for the workforce. “Oh, look, if we only hire employed people, the Dark Angel of the Recession will pass by us. We shall shun the unlucky and thus not catch their misfortune.”
I once had a career counselor tell me “Oh, no, don’t go into HR! Everyone hates them.” Later in life, I understand why; they’re like the people in Marketing, only less creative and less grounded in their thinking.