Businesses refusing to hire the unemployed?

Celeste Blackburn SPHR · February 2011

The EEOC held a public meeting yesterday where people testified about the growing trend of employers refusing to hire people who are unemployed. [URL="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/02/unemployment-discrimination.html"]From the blog for the LA Times:
[/URL]
[INDENT]Several examples of discriminatory help-wanted ads were offered: a Texas electronics company said online that it would "not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason"; an ad for a restaurant manager position in New Jersey said applicants must be employed; a phone manufacturer's job announcement said "No Unemployed Candidates Will Be Considered At All," according to Helen Norton, associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Law.
[/INDENT]
[URL="http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-16-11.cfm"]According to the EEOC news release on the meeting,[/URL] experts testified that the practice of not hiring the unemployed is particularly hard on the disabled, older applicants, African-Americans, and Hispanics.

When you hire, how much does an applicant's current employment status affect your decision to hire? Or even to make it through the process of weeding out applications?

plynnl · February 2011

Wow, I didn't know that trend was happenning. I don't take being employed or not being employed a factor if qualified. Although being unemployed might have an advantage because they might be able to start earlier depending on need.

NaeNae55 · February 2011

I am really surprised at this. My only consideration regarding someone who is unemployed is why they are unemployed. In this economy, it is hardly worth asking. In a good economy, I might be more cautious. As long as I am not concerned about the reason they are unemployed, I see it as a good thing. Like plynnl, I see it as a positive (not having to wait for them to start.) Plus, they are usually grateful to be working again and make an extra effort to please.

cnghr · February 2011

I'm also surprised that this is occurring. We have a lot of good employees we'd have missed out on if we followed this practice. Like the others, I actually view it as a good thing, if we have a position that needs to be filled right away and a qualified candidate needs a job right away. That's two weeks that can be spent training them rather than waiting for them to give notice and quit their current job.

Paul in Cannon Beach · February 2011

In a perfect world, the person at this Texas electronics company who came up with this idea will lose their job and gain a firsthand perspective on unemployment.

kdigangi · February 2011

I agree with all other posters, including Paul. In the past I might have been suspect, but these days, so many good people are unemployed, it's just stupid not to consider them.

Still Need Coffee · February 2011

I'm along the same line of thinking as Nae - in different economic times, I may have seen a currently unemployed individual in a different light than an employed one. But given today's climate, I don't necessarily see unemployment as the same red flag I saw it in the past.

Regardless, I think it is a worthless practice to automatically exclude applicants who are currently unemployed. What if they are coming back from maternity leave? What if they just did a stint in the Peace Corps or Army Reserve and don't have a current position. Very short-sighted indeed.

cnghr · February 2011

[quote=Still Need Coffee;721724]What if they are coming back from maternity leave? What if they just did a stint in the Peace Corps or Army Reserve and don't have a current position. Very short-sighted indeed.[/quote]

What if, like me, they had been a stay-at-home mom for 8 years? I've been here for going on 30 years now and I think that management would agree that it would have been a really dumb thing to refuse to even interview me because I was unemployed when I applied!

NaeNae55 · February 2011

I can't help wondering at the motive behind this. Could it be an attempt to reduce the number of applicants? I remember running an ad in the early 80's during our last really big economic downturn. I got hundreds of applicants for a job that normally wouldn't have got more than a dozen or so.
Whatever the reasoning, it seems self-defeating to me. Having a job already doesn't guarantee that you are a good worker.

Sharon McKnight SPHR · February 2011

To me, one of the most interesting things about this story online is the comments that have been been posted/ i read dew and they certainly are all over the place.

Sharon

ACU Frank · February 2011

I think you have to take it all in context. It's great if you want to give the stay-at-home mom a chance to re-enter the workforce, for example, but it certainly doesn't seem to pay off for me. In the past six months alone, I've hired three who fit that category and lost all three. The durations - 3 days, 6 days, 4 months. Two more accepted offers and cancelled a few days before they were supposed to start. Five of five said it was because they needed to be at home with their kids.

I think the employer who hired cnghr knows they got a heckuva deal and a great employee, but at some point you get worn out trying to find the "diamond in the rough" and you start looking for the diamond that's already in a gold setting.

Disclosure: I'm doing second interviews with three candidates in the next few days, and all three are stay-at-home moms looking to get back to work. Sigh.

Paul in Cannon Beach · February 2011

Frank, determine which one has the WORST children. Then hire her. She'll never leave.

NaeNae55 · February 2011

[QUOTE=ACU Frank;721730] In the past six months alone, I've hired three who fit that category and lost all three. The durations - 3 days, 6 days, 4 months. Two more accepted offers and cancelled a few days before they were supposed to start. Five of five said it was because they needed to be at home with their kids. [/QUOTE]

Frank: it's possible they thought work would be easier or they would like it more, and then again, it's possible they didn't like who they were working for and/or with. Try putting some pants on and then see if they stay.

Tony Kessler · July 2011

Today's NY Times has an update on this topic. tk

[URL]http://nyti.ms/nIWEZW[/URL]

ACU Frank · July 2011

I hired a new manager who started yesterday. He was employed, and we hired him over one internal candidate and a half-dozen other 'finalists'. Only one of the other external finalists was employed.

Several of the people we interviewed mentioned they thought they were being overlooked because of their unemployed status. It was sad to hear, but in the end I feel very confident we picked the only applicant who could perform to our expectations. My runner-up happened to be the other employed applicant.

Sometimes, correlation and causation are just distant cousins. Several of the unemployed finalists sank their chances when they expressed ideas or preferences that left us stunned. One said her ideal job would involve an employer who would let her smoke while working. One said the worst part about her last employer was they expected her to finish helping all the customers, even if it took until after closing time. Her quote was "It was everything I could do to keep from telling those people Hey! I don't come to your work and make you stay late 20 minutes because I can't get there earlier!" While I felt some sympathy for each of those longterm unemployed applicants, I could see why they were unemployed. I could also see why they are likely to be unemployed for the foreseeable future. Amazingly, five of the six unemployed applicants claimed to have voluntarily left their previous jobs, and for what I considered lousy reasons. Quitting because you're getting "only" 30 hours a week is not very bright if you're still getting ZERO hours six months later. You get the point.

I know that isn't the case with all the longterm unemployed, and it may not be the case for even half... but it sure seems like I see an awful lot of them.

Tony Kessler · July 2011

Interesting insights. On the plus side, Frank, I'm glad to hear you're hiring. tk

Paul in Cannon Beach · July 2011

I may have mentioned this already but this year I was invited to speak to a group of job seekers at an employment assistance center. The subject was how to interview with a company.

My main point that I tried to stress was that they needed to understand the mindset of a busy HR manager or hiring supervisor. Too often applicants approach the interview without considering that the person who is interviewing them is:

- extremely busy
- probably stressed out
- has their own life problems
- just wants to find someone to fill the position who can do the job

Applicants who start off by pouring out their own problems (why they can't find job, past bad bosses, transportation problems, etc) are unlikely to succeed in finding a job.

The harsh reality is that the hiring person doesn't care about your problems. They just want someone who can do this job and not add stress to their lives.

The room was pretty quiet for awhile. Most of them looked at me like I was a heartless jerk. Then I explained how eventually if you get the job your supervisor WILL eventually care about you and your problems. They may even want to HELP you with your problems if you are valuable enough.

Some started to nod and one guy just kind of twitched. I could tell that this was not the interview discussion they were expecting. But in reality it was the most loving thing I could tell them because it was the truth.

Still Need Coffee · July 2011

That's great stuff, Paul. I wish some of my current employees would abide by the same expectations!

NaeNae55 · July 2011

It is the cold hard truth, Paul, and it was one of the best things you could have told them. They should remember that they don't care about the HR person's problems either, they are just wanting a job. It is a two way street that many forget because they are so focused on their own side of the street.

sonny · July 2011

Applicants who start off by pouring out their own problems (why they can't find job, past bad bosses, transportation problems, etc) are unlikely to succeed in finding a job.

Reminds of the guy who called everyone but God whining about why he did not get an interview. . . .."My wife is going to divorce me if I don't get this job."
I am sorry, and that is my problem HOW????

SpartanFan · August 2011

I too agree that it is a rather ludicrous practice to automatically exclude the unemployed from consideration as there are many competent individuals who would make exellent employees if just given the chance. However, my biggest concern about this issue is the EEOC automatically turning this into a diparate impact theory as they will undoubtably move with speed to add yet another prong to the ever-expanding world of ways sue employers. If they are sucessful in making this anothr protected class, it won't be long before employers will be defending in court every decision not to hire someone who was not qualified, but also unemployed at that time. Is there any end in sight to the EEOC's relentless drive to make every adverse employment decsion an illegal one?

ACU Frank · August 2011

Whoa...

There are enough real dragons out there... no need to go after imaginary ones.

Paul in Cannon Beach · August 2011

I don't have stats but I would hazard to guess that minorities are unemployed in higher rates than non-minorities. Therefore, a policy which excludes the unemployed from consideration will exclude minorities in greater percentages.

Makes sense to me. Imagine if every company had this policy. How would an unemployed person ever find a job. Its ridiculous.

Celeste Blackburn SPHR · August 2011

[quote=Paul in Cannon Beach;722774]I don't have stats but I would hazard to guess that minorities are unemployed in higher rates than non-minorities. Therefore, a policy which excludes the unemployed from consideration will exclude minorities in greater percentages.[/quote]

Paul, you are right, that is exactly the problem the EEOC is pointing out.

Celeste Blackburn SPHR · September 2011

Now the White House is on the "don't discriminate against the unemployed" train. Just read an article in the [I]New York Times[/I] talking about how Obama's jobs bill would make it “an unlawful employment practice” for a business with 15 or more employees to refuse to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

According to the [I]Times[/I] article, "Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

Do you think this section of the jobs bill will make it through Congress?

For those of you who think it is a bad idea to discriminate against the unemployed, do you think this is the solution?

I think it is incredibly short-sighted to discriminate against the unemployed when hiring, but this possible new law seems like it could lead to a lot of frivilous lawsuits from frustrated job searchers, and unless an employer posts a job ad specifically excluding the unemployed, how do you prove this sort of discrimination?

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us/politics/obama-proposes-adding-unemployed-to-protected-status.html?_r=1&emc=eta1"]Here's a link to the article if you want to read it.[/URL]

Still Need Coffee · September 2011

I don't think this will get passed (at least I hope it doesn't!). I completely agree that a business should never intentionally exclude someone from consideration just because they are unemployed. But, I personally feel that discrimination laws should be made protect people who have some characteristic that they cannot change, but some people may be biased towards.

Now, I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but unemployment can often (not always) be avoided (strive be a top performer, a hard worker, etc). Because it is something that employees have some degree of control over, I don't think it's worth protecting as a new protected class. The entire country has fallen upon hard times, but I don't think handouts in the form of frivolous lawsuits are the way to make things better. As some of the previous posters have pointed out, sometimes companies have very good reasons for not wanting to hire someone who is currently unemployed - maybe it's a field with rapidly changing technology or laws, or they've had extremely bad experiences in the past....but whatever the reason, I think this is one area where the employer needs to retain that decision making ability, not the government.

Tony Kessler · October 2011

On the dangers of excluding the unemployed from your hiring pools, here is a fresh take from South Carolina Employment Law Letter editor Reggie Gay. This also appeared in Friday's Hero Line ezine: [url]http://bit.ly/uxaKpX[/url]

Warning, shameless plug ahead!

Coincidentally, Reggie will be conducting a webinar on this timely subject on Nov. 29. [url]http://bit.ly/w0wToF[/url]

See, that didn't hurt too much. thx tk

Tony Kessler · March 2012

Interestingly, this issue continues to percolate. Legislation now appears to be bubbling up at the state level. tk

[url]http://tnne.ws/H4OVRp[/url]

NaeNae55 · March 2012

I can understand why an applicant might get a negative point for being unemployed for more than 6 months in the IT arena IF I am sure they have not kept current in their field. That and medicine are two areas where you absolutely must keep current with changing technology. However, it shouldn't exclude anyone. When looking at otherwise equal applicants, I might consider it a negative if I have to spend time bringing someone up to speed with technology. Of course, I would also have to weigh that with how much they are likely to appreciate an offer and be determined to be a good employee.

Anyway I look at it, excluding someone because they have been out of work for awhile just seems dumb to me.

Paul in Cannon Beach · April 2012

Badabing! Badabang! Oregon joined New Joisey as the 2nd state to pass legislation that prohibits overt discrimination against the unemployed in job advertisements.

As an employer, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think its unfair to have a blanket policy that prohibits hiring the unemployed. On the other hand, asking a candidate about their current employment status is a reasonable question and can provide useful information as to the candidates competency, availability to start, etc.

As an employer, would you be nervous hiring someone who has been unemployed for more than a year?

ACU Frank · April 2012

This might be one of the few regs (or even the only one) that by its nature separates the "asking" from the "acting". It's generally regarded as dangerous to ask how old someone is because you might be accused of acting on it, for example. But how do you even accept a standard resume or application without finding out how long someone has been out of work? Most of us are very capable of separating the asking from the acting, and this might be the first time that separation has become a practical necessity. I see that as a silver lining, and maybe the first step toward getting rid of the misconception that it's "illegal" to know very much about your applicant.

Businesses refusing to hire the unemployed?

Comments