Unemployed? Move Along...Nothing To See Here.

This recent trend has me perplexed -the trend towards including exclusionary wording on job postings which state in various forms: “The unemployed need not apply.”

Laura Bassett reported this recently on Huffington Post in her post titled: Disturbing Job Ads: The UnemployedWill Not Be Considered. She outs a few of the companies who are guilty of this practice and some politicians’reactions.

Hey Recruiters! What gives? What ever happened to “Let’s help America by putting her back to work one job at a time.”? Isn’t this prolonging the job crisis and unemployment by further dividing the “haves” and “have nots”?

After my initial reaction, I proceeded to take a closer look at this approach. I am always looking for ways to increase personal productivity and quality of candidates. Is the benefit worth the risk? Here are the pros and cons from the as I see them from the recruiting side:

· First, let me state, there is no law against discriminating against the unemployed, but statements like the above can get your organization into trouble. It can lead to disparate impact. Disparate or adverse impact is defined by the adverse treatment of one group over another by four-fifths. With the unemployment rate for Black Males at 18% in April 2010, and double the national average – this is a very real danger. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) Even if the disparate impact is unintentional, it is still illegal and the burden of proof lies with the employer.

· It reflects poorly on the organization. With a net loss of 8.2 million jobs since the start of 2008, the economic crisis has touched just about everyone in some way, shape or form. It reads as insensitive and elitist. By tacking statements such as “MUST be currently employed to be considered” at the bottom of job postings, the organization is cast in a negative light.

· It makes Recruiting appear lazy and whiny. The only benefit I can see with this approach from the organization’s point of view is that it might save the Recruiter a little bit of time screening resumes. But the negatives far outweigh the positives in my opinion. Corporate HR is constantly fighting to improve our reputation with employees, management and the community, so why would they approve such a statement when it coveys such an uncaring sentiment? Time over people? Not in the world where I want to live.

· It is counter-productive. With mass lay-offs and reductions in force becoming commonplace, there are bound to be talented people who got caught up in the misfortunes of company downsizing. Why exclude them if they were let go through no fault of their own? You might find a gem just waiting to be discovered.

· It won’t work. Many people are technically classified as “unemployed” but do some sort of work and could conceivably be an “independent contractor” depending on their definition, not Recruiting’s. And, of course, no one will lie on their resume – that never happens.

· Who would want to work in an environment where callousness is advertised to prospective employees? Probably not the best and brightest.

Chances are the professionals on the front lines of Human Resources and/or Recruiting
in these organizations had little or nothing to do with the final approval of this verbiage. In this climate of cost-cutting, these companies might not even have a dedicated recruiting
professional. It doesn’t matter who said it, approved it, or thought it up. It is still out there and reflecting poorly on the organization, and ultimately it could be decreasing the quality of applicants.

Maybe the author or the approver thought they were saving the unemployed some time by stating that their resumes would not make the cut, up front. But even the best intentions can result in negative consequences and statements like these in job ads should warrant a
second look.

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 9, 2010 at 9:56am: Seems someone yesterday came away from this thinking my attitude was "anything for a buck" which I've proven to be NOT the case for the past 20+ years. So just to make clear - I'm all for introducing anyone who (in my opinion) is qualified for a role - regardless of their current situation.

I was simply offering a look into a position I'm working on right now where I happen to believe my client has a legitimate reason to have a "No unemployed candidates" rule.

What if the position had the title of "Director of Ensuring We Stay in Business" or some such? Wouldn't you think at a minimum the person for that role would not have a history of shutting off the lights? Especially if they were the one in charge?

Comment by es on June 9, 2010 at 10:41am: Since when is a DEPRESSION the fault of a business and its professionals being victims of it? This is the same logic that says that it was the lady who wore a miniskirt who is to blame for being raped.

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 9, 2010 at 10:54am: Eva - I am not in the business of doing battle with my clients. Requiring someone to be "employed" is very rare. This is the first time I have personally been involved (that I know of) in something like this.

This place (RecruitingBlogs) is a good spot to get some exposure. I looked at your profile and there is no hint whatsoever of who you are, where you are or what type of work you are looking for. Rather than be pissed off - why not try filling in the blanks a little and perhaps someone here (reading that you are looking for work) might take notice?

Comment by es on June 9, 2010 at 10:56am: Jerry, I will do that right now. Thankyou for the suggestion. I certainly hope that someone will (notice).

Comment by es on June 9, 2010 at 10:58am: While I do that, here is my LinkedIn profile; http://www.linkedin.com/in/evacoppola

Comment by Sandra McCartt on June 9, 2010 at 11:15am: Eva,
I reviewed your profile. As a recruiting professional if you received a resume identical to yours with someone else's name at the top, what questions would you ask the candidate?

Comment by Bob Petersen on June 9, 2010 at 11:28am: Anyone that considers such a request just is not seeing the consequenses of such desires. There are many good people with great skills and experiences that are unemployed through no fault of their own, especially from the events the last couple of years. The war on talent is going to get tough again in the near future. This is a great time for organizations to get ahead in their employment branding and get people talking how great some employers are in their hiring processes. Good managers will not have such irrelevent limitations on the candidates they want to consider as it is such a disservice to everyone including those who write their paychecks.

Comment by es on June 9, 2010 at 11:44am: Sandra,

I would ask about my technical knowledge and how I learn.

Comment by Dave Hitchman on June 9, 2010 at 12:14pm: "I was simply offering a look into a position I'm working on right now where I happen to believe my client has a legitimate reason to have a "No unemployed candidates" rule."

mmm, I really find that extraordinarily hard to believe, a client has managed to convince you that the best interests of all are served by poaching from another company. At best poaching is a way of avoiding paying for training that is required for the job (by using someone else) at worst it is a cynical attempt to try and put a competitor out of business by either forcing wages up or removing their staff. Neither strike me as in the interests of business in general. Perhaps your client really has no morals, in which case I hope you fail dismally to fill this vacancy as they deserve to go out of business.

"What if the position had the title of "Director of Ensuring We Stay in Business" or some such? Wouldn't you think at a minimum the person for that role would not have a history of shutting off the lights? Especially if they were the one in charge? "

Well, those 'at the top' seem to believe that failing teaches wonderfully useful lessons and immediately go out and look for another even bigger company to cripple. Certainly there are two ways of looking at someone who has such a job title - either they should have been so lucky in life they have never found a difficult situation to work around and learn from, or perhaps they are very old and have learnt every possible lesson ever about any business that might find itself 'in trouble' and have a huge handbook of how to avoid problems. If they are the second I guess we would all want to employ them...

Comment by Jerry Albright on June 9, 2010 at 12:26pm: Nikole - I must apologize in advance of my bailing out on this one. While I have simply tried to say "Hey - there are some very rare cases where "currently employed" might be a reasonable requirement" - I'm not prepared to take all the hits for it.

I can tell by the way Dave here is hoping I "fail dismally" and some of the other tone that perhaps I'm being misread. Sorry - but I'm out.

Comment