Businesses refusing to hire the unemployed?
![Celeste_Blackburn](http://hrforms.blr.com/uploads/userpics/680/n2YF65EU8LFOV.jpg)
![](http://hrforms.blr.com/themes/hr/design/images/editor-badge.png)
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?
[/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?
Comments
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.
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!
Whatever the reasoning, it seems self-defeating to me. Having a job already doesn't guarantee that you are a good worker.
Sharon
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.
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.
[URL]http://nyti.ms/nIWEZW[/URL]
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.
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.
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????
There are enough real dragons out there... no need to go after imaginary ones.
Makes sense to me. Imagine if every company had this policy. How would an unemployed person ever find a job. Its ridiculous.
Paul, you are right, that is exactly the problem the EEOC is pointing out.
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]
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.
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
[url]http://tnne.ws/H4OVRp[/url]
Anyway I look at it, excluding someone because they have been out of work for awhile just seems dumb to me.
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?