Huff Post: Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'

[heyholetsgogrant]

Laura Bassett

lbassett@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'

First Posted: 06- 4-10 11:52 AM | Updated: 06- 4-10 02:42 PM

Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month? Bad news: Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants.

In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL." When asked about the ad, a spokeswoman said, "This was a mistake, and once it was noticed it was removed."

Ads asking the unemployed not to apply are easy to find. A Craigslist ad for assistant restaurant managers in Edgewater, N.J. specifies, "Must be currently employed." Another job posting for a tax manager at an unnamed "top 25 CPA firm" in New York City contains the same line in all caps.

Source: Huffington Post

Full Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait so if someone sends a resume to this so called "electronics company" and is employed, you like this because they are happy where they are? Why would they send you a resume in the first place?

[Kilmer17]

It sounds silly, but once you think through the reasoning behind it (as stated, they dont want to sift through hundreds of resumes) it makes some sense.

they're limitting their pool and may exclude a great candidate. But that's the chance they are willing to take I guess.

[heyholetsgogrant]

It sounds silly, but once you think through the reasoning behind it (as stated, they dont want to sift through hundreds of resumes) it makes some sense.

they're limitting their pool and may exclude a great candidate. But that's the chance they are willing to take I guess.

That's true, but the electrics companies main reasoning is "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. "

Why would someone send you a resume if they are happy where they are? Usually, A. They don't like it, B. Want more money, or C. Move up (but that's unlikely in these times). I dunno An easy way to do it would be to state specifically what they want, usually that's what you put in a job ad. "B.S. in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING REQUIRED"

[Kilmer17]

I think todays environment is a good reason for people happy in a job to look elsewhere. Nobody is going to ***** at work for lack of advancement now, the thought of no job is too scary. So the option to move up may be best by looking at other companies.

[Special K]

Well, that's reassuring.

[McD5]

I would never hire someone who was on unemployment. Unless circumstances were absolutely beyond belief, I wouldn't even consider it.

[Hubbs]

Super.

(By the way, this sounds way too much like these companies are trying to hire Dwight Schrute. "Would I ever leave this company? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I'm getting paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued that loyalty more highly, I am going wherever they value loyalty the most.")

[heyholetsgogrant]

I would never hire someone who was on unemployment. Unless circumstances were absolutely beyond belief, I wouldn't even consider it.

How about the worst economy since the great depression?

[McD5]

How about the worst economy since the great depression?

No, not good enough.

90% of the country is employed.

Why would I want to take a risk on the work ethic of the 10% that isn't?

[Darth Tater]

That's true, but the electrics companies main reasoning is "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. "

Why would someone send you a resume if they are happy where they are? Usually, A. They don't like it, B. Want more money, or C. Move up (but that's unlikely in these times). I dunno An easy way to do it would be to state specifically what they want, usually that's what you put in a job ad. "B.S. in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING REQUIRED"

The ONLY strategy to have some control of your career to an employee (and even to those who are in employee-like roles such as consultants) is to maximize available opportunities. As an employee, the primary reason you stay employed and/or have advancement opportunities is the demand for what you do or can do and your salesmanship. It has very little to do with working hard (except indirectly). You may be "happy" now but the worm can turn very quickly.

[SnyderShrugged]

I would never hire someone who was on unemployment. Unless circumstances were absolutely beyond belief, I wouldn't even consider it.

Lovely, how about someone who gets layed off due to a location closing down? No fault of their own, and everyone else who worked there gets it too?

[doctorshockalu]

No, not good enough.

90% of the country is employed.

Why would I want to take a risk on the work ethic of the 10% that isn't?

That is seriously the dumbest thing I have ever read on a message board and that is after reading your ridiculous print 13 trillion dollars thread. If you truly think unemployment is 10% then wow just wow. Also, you seem to not understand that just because someone is unemployed does not mean they have a bad work ethic. If every company did this then people that got laid off would never be able to work again.

Clearly you must watch a lot of fox news and are probably a christian with those values. Is this a correct assumption?

[twa]

It sounds silly, but once you think through the reasoning behind it (as stated, they dont want to sift through hundreds of resumes) it makes some sense.

they're limitting their pool and may exclude a great candidate. But that's the chance they are willing to take I guess.

Makes sense to me(yes I'm a heartless **** that has never been unemployed)

If you have more applicants than needs ,focusing on those that have managed to remain employed in these times makes sense.

If the pool of applicants is too shallow,then you expand it.

I wouldn't say I would not hire a unemployed person,but I can certainly admit to a bias against long term unemployed persons.

I would think you could find good candidates that were under employed over the long term unemployed.

[TheDoyler23]

Don't employers get tax credits for hiring unemployed individuals with that jobs bill from earlier this year?

[twa]

Don't employers get tax credits for hiring unemployed individuals with that jobs bill from earlier this year?

yes, but not significant enough to effect any of my choices.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220326,00.html

Employers who hire unemployed workers this year (after Feb. 3, 2010 and before Jan. 1, 2011) may qualify for a 6.2-percent payroll tax incentive, in effect exempting them from their share of Social Security taxes on wages paid to these workers after March 18, 2010. This reduced tax withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits, and employers would still need to withhold the employee’s 6.2-percent share of Social Security taxes, as well as income taxes. The employer and employee’s shares of Medicare taxes would also still apply to these wages.

In addition, for each worker retained for at least a year, businesses may claim an additional general business tax credit, up to $1,000 per worker, when they file their 2011 income tax returns.

[jnhay]

Don't companies have computers that can sift through resumes?

[twa]

Don't companies have computers that can sift through resumes?

Far as I know it is limited to certain formats or entering the info yourself into the proper format.

Certainly would seem possible for preprinted applications.

[skinfan133]

No, not good enough.

90% of the country is employed.

Why would I want to take a risk on the work ethic of the 10% that isn't?

my father, who has never been unemployed before, got laid off 2 weeks ago, you saying he's a lazy bum?

[Larry]

Isn't this the way the Redskins have built their teams for the last 20 years? :whoknows:

[Burgold]

I get it. I think it's cold and short sighted, but I get it. I also think that this is pretty common place. I think a lot of places only want you if you are working and working in a pretty identical job. It's an easy way of vetting. It's not necessarily the way to get the best candidate.

[Kilmer17]

Isn't this the way the Redskins have built their teams for the last 20 years? :whoknows:

/thread.

I nominate this as the greatest post of all time. Bravo Larry!!!!!!!!!!!

[Destino]

I would never hire someone who was on unemployment. Unless circumstances were absolutely beyond belief, I wouldn't even consider it.

I disagree completely. If the company goes under it's not their fault and being that they are unemployed I have an absolute advantage at the salary negotiation. Hell I could even say "you'll make x amount for a one month trial period" if I want to and they'd more than likely take it. You can never get away with that with an employed applicant. All depends on the position they want to fill and the circumstances behind their unemployment but I'd never turn away a obvious business advantage over ridiculous political idealism.

[JimboDaMan]

my father, who has never been unemployed before, got laid off 2 weeks ago, you saying he's a lazy bum?

No, but the underlying assumption is that your dad is PROBABLY a lazy bum, and its not worth his time to find out otherwise. One of the most spectactularly stupid thought processes I've come across in many a year. Its just a shame that other people are affected by it.

[TheLongshot]

I would never hire someone who was on unemployment. Unless circumstances were absolutely beyond belief, I wouldn't even consider it.

You who claim that money needs to get into the hands of the people. Yet, you don't want to be a part of the solution. Nice.

[McD5]

There are plenty of jobs available. You may not want them, but they are there.

Street sweepers. Garbage collectors. Bars and restaurants. Hard labor.

Jobs are all over the place. Dream jobs? Maybe not. But jobs.

Barring personal injury, or incredible circumstances, the second someone applies for unemployment, they have simply given up. With 90% of the population employed, why would anyone want to bet on the 10% that isn't?