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

[Burgold]

No offense mbws, but you are incorrect. Please give me the line item.

There is FUTA and SUTA and it is all paid by the employer. NOT THE EMPLOYEE. Even in new york. Maybe you misunderstand a line item on your paystub.

Well, whether we pay for it directly or indirectly... I think you can argue that we still pay for it. Mentally, I include health benies in what someone makes as their salary. Do you see it on the paystub? No, but it's value added. If the employer pays it for you, that's that much less you are getting paid because it is included in the cost of your employment.

[chipwhich]

Well, whether we pay for it directly or indirectly... I think you can argue that we still pay for it. Mentally, I include health benies in what someone makes as their salary. Do you see it on the paystub? No, but it's value added. If the employer pays it for you, that's that much less you are getting paid because it is included in the cost of your employment.

Well you could say the same for office space, lighting, secretary. There is a cost of doing business.

I have been provided a number of "Total Compensation" sheets from my previous employers which include Health and Disability, Vacation, 401K match, etc...they never include FICA/FUTA/SUTA.

[Burgold]

I don't totally disagree, but it is a bit of a semantic argument. I think he could also argue that we pay for unemployment every year via our taxes and so in a time of utmost need and surprise that there is nothing shameful in utilizing the tool for a short period while we try to find our barings... still, in my most John Kerryish mood I could flip flop to support the position either of you are taking.

[chipwhich]

I don't totally disagree, but it is a bit of a semantic argument. I think he could also argue that we pay for unemployment every year via our taxes and so in a time of utmost need and surprise that there is nothing shameful in utilizing the tool for a short period while we try to find our barings... still, in my most John Kerryish mood I could flip flop to support the position either of you are taking.

Well GSF said, you pay for the benefit you may as well use it.

Truth be told the employer pays the benefit, and if claims are filed against it, meaning people take unemployment, it DRIVES UP the price that specific employer pays. You get penalized for claims.

Employers get hit with new taxes, benefits premium increases (my company health care went up 20% this year), etc. Employers pay a lot of stuff that the employee doesn't see. Doesn't necessarily give them a right to that benefit.

I can guarantee you, if that "tax" went away...employers wouldn't jump to push that money into employees salary

[Burgold]

i can guarantee you, if that "tax" went away...employers wouldn't jump to push that money into employees salary

what a crummy boss you have

[Henry]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I mentioned this story to my wife, who's been a corporate recruiter for over 15 years. She told me that that's illegal and her company (which is very big and very well known and you've all heard of it) would never do that for risk of a big fat lawsuit.

[doctorshockalu]

I would work at McDonalds in two seconds, before I would ever accept an unemployment check.

I couldn't live with myself accepting government assistance, when I could work to do much better.

You couldn't live with yourself accepting government assistance? So you don't take the real estate tax break? family tax break? Social Security? etc.... How much more do you pay in taxes each year because of this?

[DeaconBlue]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I mentioned this story to my wife, who's been a corporate recruiter for over 15 years. She told me that that's illegal and her company (which is very big and very well known and you've all heard of it) would never do that for risk of a big fat lawsuit.

Apparently Kilmer and Mcd5 havent gotten the memo that she did. That or they were too full of themselves to read it.

[DeaconBlue]

Well GSF said, you pay for the benefit you may as well use it.

Truth be told the employer pays the benefit, and if claims are filed against it, meaning people take unemployment, it DRIVES UP the price that specific employer pays. You get penalized for claims.

Employers get hit with new taxes, benefits premium increases (my company health care went up 20% this year), etc. Employers pay a lot of stuff that the employee doesn't see. Doesn't necessarily give them a right to that benefit.

I can guarantee you, if that "tax" went away...employers wouldn't jump to push that money into employees salary

I'm thinking that it's set up that way for a reason. That being so that an employer might think about firing an employee for a second rather than just sending someone down the the road just because it was a bad day. It's a moot point since we all know you bosses are always right; )

[Thiebear]

I think 60% of the people on unemployment should be working for the government.

It should be the halfway house to a regular job.

Can't find a job: Work for the city and mow the grass, paint curbs, direct traffic, etc.

6month reviews and build your resume... H.R. goals are to get you a private job.

Next person takes your place.. No reason to sit at home all day waiting for your bennies to end 'since you gave up lookin'. This keeps you going.

Instead of a GS13 permanent job: Its a GS8 halfway house.

[DCBnG21]

Odd subject for me; as I got laid off in a hug swath of employees through no fault of my own. After all I paid in taxes through the years, I felt no guilt whatsoever taking some unemployment for a little but. I started my own business and then also got hired back by my former employer (the same one that laid me off) on the terms that they provide me with enough flexibility to keep my own thing going and growing; now I have a job and a growing business and it's safe to say that anything i received is being paid back in my taxes.

I think the biggest problem involved in hiring people is the lack of willingness for people to give honest references because of their liability. It makes it tough to figure out if someone is a good employee or not.

[talk show host]

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?

as someone who works for a top financial instituation that is part of a departmental elimination because of a merger, i think you're a complete jerk. my work ethic (and the work ethic of everyone in my department) has nothing to do with the reason we're currently being RIFed. Im 30 and have been consistently employed for 10 years. My quarterly and annual reviews have always been exceptional. So how is it that I'm a risk?

[Kilmer17]

Apparently Kilmer and Mcd5 havent gotten the memo that she did. That or they were too full of themselves to read it.

Not sure why I was brought into this.

But now that I am.

I'd like to know what is illegal about it Henry.

I think it's a strange way to weed out potential employees, but I dont see how it's illegal. And I certainly laugh at the number of folks who constantly come into these threads trying to tell private companies how they should run their business. If this is a bad move for them, and it may be, then they have the right to be idiots.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I think 60% of the people on unemployment should be working for the government.

It should be the halfway house to a regular job.

Can't find a job: Work for the city and mow the grass, paint curbs, direct traffic, etc.

6month reviews and build your resume... H.R. goals are to get you a private job.

Next person takes your place.. No reason to sit at home all day waiting for your bennies to end 'since you gave up lookin'. This keeps you going.

Instead of a GS13 permanent job: Its a GS8 halfway house.

I like that plan, I would make a boat load of more money than I am now!

Not sure why I was brought into this.

But now that I am.

I'd like to know what is illegal about it Henry.

I think it's a strange way to weed out potential employees, but I dont see how it's illegal. And I certainly laugh at the number of folks who constantly come into these threads trying to tell private companies how they should run their business. If this is a bad move for them, and it may be, then they have the right to be idiots.

A lot of people will claim race is involved there are disproportionate amount of minorities that are unemployed right now

[Henry]

Not sure why I was brought into this.

But now that I am.

I'd like to know what is illegal about it Henry.

I think it's a strange way to weed out potential employees, but I dont see how it's illegal. And I certainly laugh at the number of folks who constantly come into these threads trying to tell private companies how they should run their business. If this is a bad move for them, and it may be, then they have the right to be idiots.

I'm not in the business of recruiting, but again, when I mentioned it to my wife she actually got angry. She said that companies are not allowed to look at anything but a person's experience when looking at a resume, and that any personal information such sex, race, religion, marital status, how many kids they have, what kind of car they like to drive and yes, employment status cannot be considered because that opens the door for a discrimination lawsuit. In fact, she says as a recruiter it's best to avoid talking about anything like that and just stick to talking about the job in question.

If you think the person is a flake you document it in one of the follow-up interviews, but you cannot specifically cite 'he was unemployed at the time' as a legitimate reason. You certainly don't document it that way.

My wife is one of the best recruiters in the company. I'm not saying this because I'm married to her. I've seen this company lay off 90% of it's recruiting department twice in her time there (back in '02 and again this past year) and she always survives the purge. I'm guessing she knows what she's talking about.

[Kilmer17]

I'm not in the business of recruiting, but again, when I mentioned it to my wife she actually got angry. She said that companies are not allowed to look at anything but a person's experience when looking at a resume, and that any personal information such sex, race, religion, marital status, how many kids they have, what kind of car they like to drive and yes, employment status cannot be considered because that opens the door for a discrimination lawsuit. In fact, she says as a recruiter it's best to avoid talking about anything like that and just stick to talking about the job in question.

If you think the person is a flake you document it in one of the follow-up interviews, but you cannot specifically cite 'he was unemployed at the time' as a legitimate reason. You certainly don't document it that way.

My wife is one of the best recruiters in the company. I'm not saying this because I'm married to her. I've seen this company lay off 90% of it's recruiting department twice in her time there (back in '02 and again this past year) and she always survives the purge. I'm guessing she knows what she's talking about.

I see that more as a CYA line of thinking. But I dont see how asking about a persons current employment is a violation, in fact I think it's one of the most important things to know about a person is their employment history. How many jobs they've held, in what fields, etc etc.

This is very interesting to me. Will you ask her specifics about this? My thinking is that her company is probably erring on the side of caution (smart move).

[Spanky22]

McD5,

I think the thing that you are missing here is that you CANT get a job at McDonald's or collecting trash right now. People aren't hiring over-qualified people for jobs either.

For example, I worked at the corporate office of a large, Fortune 500 company here in Richmond that went under last year. When it kicked the bucket, over 2000 people were suddenly out of a job who all had the same or better qualifications than I did and who had more work experience (I was there about a year and a half). I applied for everything that I could. Literally, everything. Things I was qualified for. Things I was REALLY over qualified for. Everything in between. Construction, fast food, retail, you name it. I have previous experience while working during high school and college in all of those places, but because I was over-qualified, they wouldnt even look at me. They knew that, as soon as I found a job that I was qualified for, I'd be gone. Training me and getting me up to speed would be a waste of their time. In their eyes, it wasn't worth it to hire me. They were better off hiring someone who wasn't overqualified. There are tons of people with only GEDs or high school diplomas that are unemployed as well. It's not just us office drones.

So, to your claim that you would be working again right away, I call BS. You wouldn't. If you had been unemployed in the last year, you would know that. I was unemployed for 9 months. I cut people's yards on the side. I walked their dogs. I sold stuff that I owned on ebay. That was somewhat helpful, but it wasnt going to pay my mortgage. So, I took unemployment. It's embarrassing. I'm really not happy about it, but I didn't have a choice between that or a lesser paying job. I'm not a deadbeat. I'm not someone who feels 'entitled' to these types of things. My wife and I have always saved our money and lived within our means. Still, I wasn't able to find anything, big or small, for 9 months, so I did what I had to, whether I was proud of it or not.

Oh and to those who would say "Oh, you should have seen it coming and gotten out before it went under', of course I did. We all did. Everyone applied to every job out there that was in the field. Suddenly that market was flooded with qualified applicants. Very few of us were able to get out before the whole thing collapsed. It sucked, but there wasnt anything that we could do.

[Henry]

I see that more as a CYA line of thinking. But I dont see how asking about a persons current employment is a violation, in fact I think it's one of the most important things to know about a person is their employment history. How many jobs they've held, in what fields, etc etc.

This is very interesting to me. Will you ask her specifics about this? My thinking is that her company is probably erring on the side of caution (smart move).

Let's put it this way:

If she notices someone has been out of work for 6 months and asks why the gap and the person says "Oh I decided to backpack through Europe to find myself" THEN she can put that down as a red flag.

But she can't just look at a resume, see a gap, and throw the thing away if the person meets the stated qualifications for the job. Especially now, when a large percentage of people looking for work will have one.

[Kilmer17]

Let's put it this way:

If she notices someone has been out of work for 6 months and asks why the gap and the person says "Oh I decided to backpack through Europe to find myself" THEN she can put that down as a red flag.

But she can't just look at a resume, see a gap, and throw the thing away if the person meets the stated qualifications for the job. Especially now, when a large percentage of people looking for work will have one.

See, I think she CAN legally, but maybe shouldnt in real world practice.

Will you ask her about that. I'd like to know if there is a specific law that they would be violating.

[Henry]

See, I think she CAN legally, but maybe shouldnt in real world practice.

Will you ask her about that. I'd like to know if there is a specific law that they would be violating.

Sure. She loves to talk about work.

I may not get back to you until tomorrow though.

[Mad Hatter]

Ladell Betts is unemployed.

I had to pipe up to say that I got a good laugh out of this line.

And as for the original subject of this post, I'll just say that I cannot agree less with it, for reasons that have already been covered by others earlier in the thread.