Employed or Unemployed? That Is NOT the Question.

On April 25th, Huffington Post reported on a recent law passed in New Jersey in March that prohibits job postings that may be discriminatory in nature. Who are these posts discriminating against? The unemployed.

Any job ads that specifically exclude those still unemployed will be deemed unfair by the state. In greater detail the statute:

Forbids an employer or employer’s agent, representative or designee from “knowingly or purposefully” publishing a job advertisement containing one of three types of provisions:

That being currently employed is a job requirement;
That the employer will not consider or review job applications from those who are currently unemployed; or
That the employer will only consider the applications of those currently employed.

One example includes Sony Ericsson’s post stating, “no unemployed candidates will be considered at all.” Those caught with such ads will be fined $1,000 on first offense and $5,000 - $10,000 on any following violations.

The news of the law has offered a variety of responses. Some say the legislation is laughable and recruiters will find a way around reviewing unemployed applicants while others think the legislation is laudable and the right step towards further decreased unemployment rates. Since it’s still early, results have yet to show the statute’s direct impact. Other states are also jumping on this bandwagon. New York submitted the same type of legislation on May 3, 2011.

A big complaint is that the law will force recruiters to sift through a lot more resumes. I should say, recruiters using applicant tracking systems shouldn’t be affected as they will be able to search based on skill set regardless of if the person is employed or not. But for those not leveraging technology, resumes could grow exponentially and without the right number of staff to handle it, HR processes and resources will be strained.

As for my two fluffy cents - I personally think it is unfair to exclude perfectly qualified people based on the fact they have been out of work for a while. Especially, since I know many bright individuals who have struggled to find work solely due to the job market and not their skill set.

Even if you don’t live in New Jersey, you may be dealing with this legislation in your own state soon. How do you think this will affect or not affect your recruitment process? What are your thoughts on the ruling?

Comment by Sandra McCartt on May 20, 2011 at 7:09pm: Keith, i totally agree. You have no idea how many of them there are that think like that even if they don't say it. We don't see or talk to hundreds of thousands of people who have had one or two jobs in their whole life so have no idea what really is going on out there. Or still live in the "Gold Watch Era".

Unemployed could never be a protected class because there are so many who are unemployed for valid reasons other than layoff or the economy. However the advertising really doesn't have anything to do with what businesses are going to do or not do. The thought i am sure is that if we are only going to consider candidates who are currently employed we can save some frustration if we are honest about it.

I do think it will be less of an issue as the job market continues to improve. I've seen this before when companies would not hire anyone who had formerly been in the oil and gas industry and got laid off when the bottom fell out because they were afraid that when the industry picked up they would all go back to a higher paying industry. As the job market picked up those people found jobs. Some eventually did go back into the industry but the market took care of the discrimination before that happened. It will again. The pendulum always swings. The biggest problem i see is when people think if they have been doing something to pay the rent that is out of their field they do not want to put it on the resume.

I just placed a young engineer who has been teaching fitness classes for the last two years after being laid off. They passed on the candidate when she didn't have that on her resume. I updated it and made her put it on the resume. The SVP liked that she was a survivor who had figured out a way to support herself until she could get back in her field. They are offering her more than she was making when she got laid off.

The deal is to Get Something on that Resume during that time period that is gainful employment or dedicated volunteer work or school instead of big white blank space that says "I am too mad, frustrated or upset to do anything and have been that way for the past two years."