Unemployed need not apply..Really…Really!!

Unemployed need not apply..Really…Really!!

You read it right, there are actually companies out there who are putting up signs or including in

their job descriptions that the “unemployed need not apply”.

How pathetic, how disgusting, how wrong. The bad part is because the unemployed are not a

Protective class, there is nothing that can be done about it. Now of course if the company must

Comply with OFCCP(see my posting on OFCCP), then there are some ramifications. I mean no

Company is going to be able to prove that being currently employed is essential to the duties of any

job. That said it does not help the millions of really good candidates who are not employed through

no fault of their own.

Well I hope those unethical companies are ready, because if a growing group of senators have their

way the unemployed will be a protected class, and there will be allot of companies who will be in

big trouble.

Comment by Jeremy Spring on June 17, 2011 at 11:45am: I hear ya, Dean. Worse yet, the longer someone remains out of work, the less appealing they appear to hiring companies. Recruiters can help to downplay the severity of the unemployment issue, provided the candidate can still perform at a high level. But we're now seeing heaps and heaps of "consulting" roles at the top of CVs we receive from folks out of work, which may not be such a bad thing.

Comment by David Smooke on June 17, 2011 at 12:33pm: What companies are posting “unemployed need not apply”?

Check the 7:55 to 9:45 marks of Part 1 of my interview with Kevin W. Grossman to hear more about how individual workers can combat this discrimination against the unemployed.

http://www.smartrecruiters.com/static/blog/kevin-w-grossman-on-recr...

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on June 17, 2011 at 5:41pm: This is a good reason to volunteer, specifically in your area of expertise. You're working, just not necessarily for a paycheck.

Comment by Dave Hitchman on June 18, 2011 at 1:24pm: Amy, you must think every unemployed person is fortunate enough to be able to volunteer.

For my work there are no places I can volunteer without travel, if I had no work I would not have the money to travel, so couldn't volunteer.

Even if I could, then I'm not actively seeking work, and not available so (in the UK) would not be able to receive benefit.

Besides, I if, as an employed person, I saw that on an advert I would not apply. This is for the same reason as I don't apply if I see 'first or upper second degree required', or other restrictions. I want to work for a company with an open mind who takes on and cherishes people who are the best at doing the job, not employed, highest qualified, particular location, particular history... but the best.

Comment by Greg Z. Manson on June 18, 2011 at 3:56pm: It's sad but surprisingly, at least 95% of the companies, I've recruited for, support this prerequisite. This is usually advocated by the upper management, down to the hiring managers but seldom acknowledged on a job posting.

Honestly, I feel this conspiracy is one of the reasons why the unemployment rate is still high, yet there seems to be tons of job openings out there.

Companies need to change their hiring ways by having a more creative processes and actually looking at qualified people, who happened to be unemployed.

One area companies should consider is taking the time to check what the person has been doing during their time off. Are they learning new skills and technologies during their downtime?

Comment by David Smooke on June 20, 2011 at 12:44pm: Very (!) Disturbed to Read, "It's sad but surprisingly, at least 95% of the companies, I've recruited for, support (Unemployed Need Not Apply)."

Businesses must look to hire on skills and fit, instead of statuses.

"Discrimination of the Unemployed"

Comment by Yonica S.Pimentel on June 21, 2011 at 8:52am: This is a really sad situation which will continue until some legal guidelines are established. Employers who are posting such messages are cutting their chances of finding quality candidates by excluding unemployed job seekers.

Companies will find themselves scratching their heads in confusion because they can't find any candidates to apply at all for their positions because they are indeed turning away job seekers by the tone of their job postings.

No one wants to take a chance and work for a company who is discriminate and showcases their inner jerk!

It's nonsense, they may as well list all of the other qualms about their candidates while they are at it. Under-employed, divorced, parents, veterans, disabled, male only, etc. Oh, but that would be discriminate....which is the same issue that we are dealing with here with "unemployed, need not apply."

I have read these posts in my region as well, and it's disgusting and an embarrassment to the company. But many job seekers choose not to apply because they do not want to risk being fired or treated like crap during the course of their employment with that company.

Employers must focus on the skills and the candidate's ability to get the job done. Avoid penalizing job seekers for being laid off and consider additional education, volunteering and other activities as a bonus to their company. Doing so will open up many windows of opportunities for everyone involved.

Comment by BolandGroup on June 22, 2011 at 3:11pm: The last thing we need is more regulation of the employment industry. The benefit of living in a democratic republic with a free market system of capitalism is that the most COMPETITIVE companies will not be so naive as to discriminate against unemployed candidates. Yes, the largest, most visible companies will do this, primarily to winnow down the number of resumes that need to be screened. But all of the job growth is with smaller companies who don't have the "problem" of too many qualified applicants. We ONLY recruit for companies that are privately held and under $1B in revenue and NEVER run into this problem. Small, agile, entrepreneurial companies are too smart to eliminate outstanding potential candidates. If your client is discriminating on this basis, fire your client. They are not going to be competitive, long term. Work with companies that use common sense! Oh, and did I mention that unlike their oversized counterparts, smaller employers are willing to negotiate reasonable fee terms AND pay their recruiting invoices promptly.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on June 22, 2011 at 4:22pm: and the really sick thing about this is that until they were laid off these same people where those, "passive, wonderful, elusive," hard to find candidates that all these idiots with "Talent" in their job title were slobbering over and offering to pay big fees to find.

Lay them off and put them on the market willing to take a hard look at a new position and they become a lower life form than algae.

I'll echo here. We need people with common sense and experience in business in the roles of internal recruiting not "talent acquisition gurus" who want to cut people they would have jumped all over a year ago. As the above commenter indicates, smaller companies don't let internal recruiters do this stuff. And they do pay fees and they pay promptly and more than that they appreciate the expertise of a good recruiter.

Comment by Dean Da Costa on June 22, 2011 at 4:29pm: Wow this one got people going. I agree this attitude is more prevalant with bigger companies, but not all bigger companies, I have worked for a few who are not like this at all. As to the regulation part, I agree we do not more or maybe not more so much as a change to a current regulation, simply including the Rifed, layedoff, and people in similar situations as a protected class. Mind you I am not talking about those who quit, or were fired, only those listed above. That would change things drastically for most big compnaies.