After two years on the unemployment rolls, Selena Forte thought she'd found a temporary job at a delivery company that matched her qualifications. But Forte, a 55-year-old from Cleveland, says a recruiter for an employment agency told her she would not be considered for the job because she had been out of work too long. She had lost her job driving a bus. "They didn't even want to hear about my experience," said Forte. "It didn't make sense. You're always told just go out there and get a job." Forte, scraping by now as a part time substitute school bus driver, is part of a growing number of unemployed or underemployed Americans who complain they are being screened out of job openings for the very reason they're looking for work in the first place. Some companies and job agencies prefer applicants who already have jobs, or haven't been jobless too long. Story here. This is some of the worst job discrimination I have ever heard of. If a person can do the job right, then hire them.
Depending on the industry, it can be a factor (legit or not). Think of it like dating a girl. If you find out she has been on the market for years...that tons of guys have taken her on a first date...but there have never been any second dates (due to the guy not wanting to pursue), then you might wonder what is up with her...despite her looks and pleasant attitude (see resume). Some industries, it seems like 'everyone' has been out of work. One would think it to be less of a factor there. But this is not the case in all industries. If someone can't get a job, it is natural to wonder 'why'. ...not to mention the youth movement (similar to sports). Why pay more for old
Who do you think will have less depreciation in their skills. Someone who has been out of work a month or someone who has been out of work for 2 years?
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]What's the reasoning behind it?topsemag55
Some companies might assume people who have been out of work for several months may not be stellar performers. I understand, now. Being off work for a while could be seen as being rusty. I would think what they were doing during unemployment is also a factor. Say a teacher is unemployed, but during that time, he's been volunteering his expertise at a orphanage or something. I think that should be taken into account.
Who do you think will have less depreciation in their skills. Someone who has been out of work a month or someone who has been out of work for 2 years?
Mafiree
Some skills are not lost due to time - you don't forget how to drive a commercial vehicle, for example.
In a job market where I have the hypothetical choice of many applicants, I am going to choose the best applicant(s)--part of "best" is possessing up-to-date and recently used job-related skills. Two years is a long time, and the fewer people that are highering, the more disproportionately difficult it will be for a long-term unemployed person to find employment.
Can't blame on the employers, I know it's not fair. we all know that there are almost no jobs out there. still they look at people as lazy staying home collecting unemployment.. we just need more jobs to not letting people stayed off work too long, or this getting worse.
In a job market where I have the hypothetical choice of many applicants, I am going to choose the best applicant(s)--part of "best" is possessing up-to-date and recently used job-related skills. Two years is a long time, and the fewer people that are highering, the more disproportionately difficult it will be for a long-term unemployed person to find employment.
coolbeans90
It would depend upon what the job is, as not all skills depreciate due to time. It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.
If someone hasn't been employed in a while, that could be an indication that they are not a good employee. The thing is, the employer cannot know until they take the risk and hire the person. Sure, from the employee's side, it looks like "discrimination" but walk a mile in the employer's shoes... would you rather risk all the time and money training someone who has proven they can hold a job, or someone who has been out of work for a long period of time and could just up and leave at any time? In today's volatile job market, it is hard to find "fairness."
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all. Discrimination is still allowed though. ...there are just a few select things you are not allowed to discriminate on
In a job market where I have the hypothetical choice of many applicants, I am going to choose the best applicant(s)--part of "best" is possessing up-to-date and recently used job-related skills. Two years is a long time, and the fewer people that are highering, the more disproportionately difficult it will be for a long-term unemployed person to find employment.
topsemag55
It would depend upon what the job is, as not all skills depreciate due to time. It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.
Even discounting depreciation of job skills, there are other factors to consider. A person who has been employed recently doesn't leave you wondering: "Why has this person been unemployed for the past few years?"
In a job market where I have the hypothetical choice of many applicants, I am going to choose the best applicant(s)--part of "best" is possessing up-to-date and recently used job-related skills. Two years is a long time, and the fewer people that are highering, the more disproportionately difficult it will be for a long-term unemployed person to find employment.
coolbeans90
It would depend upon what the job is, as not all skills depreciate due to time. It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.
Even discounting depreciation of job skills, there are other factors to consider. A person who has been employed recently doesn't leave you wondering: "Why has this person been unemployed for the past few years?"
Forte was working part-time, but wanted more work. Just because she hadn't driven for a while doesn't mean she forgot how.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] It would depend upon what the job is, as not all skills depreciate due to time. It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.topsemag55
Even discounting depreciation of job skills, there are other factors to consider. A person who has been employed recently doesn't leave you wondering: "Why has this person been unemployed for the past few years?"
Forte was working part-time, but wanted more work. Just because she hadn't driven for a while doesn't mean she forgot how.
Why wasn't she driving for the past two years? I would give preference to the guy who is currently driving and is just looking for another gig.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.coolbeans90
Discrimination is still allowed though. ...there are just a few select things you are not allowed to discriminate on
Also worth noting. If it's related to job performance and is legal to take into consideration, it's fair game.
Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easy
I want to come out on the side of business on this one, but I simply can't. Do I think it's discrimination? No. Do I think it's mean-spirited? Absolutely. Nobody is going to get back to work if this kind of crap keeps happening. I'm pretty sure the government is actually doing something about it, though. For once they're doing the right thing.
I want to come out on the side of business on this one, but I simply can't. Do I think it's discrimination? No. Do I think it's mean-spirited? Absolutely. Nobody is going to get back to work if this kind of crap keeps happening. I'm pretty sure the government is actually doing something about it, though. For once they're doing the right thing.
airshocker
It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision
Who do you think will have less depreciation in their skills. Someone who has been out of work a month or someone who has been out of work for 2 years?
topsemag55
Some skills are not lost due to time - you don't forget how to drive a commercial vehicle, for example. Have you ever gone an extended period without driving? I'm not saying you forget, because you don't, but you are rather rusty at it for a bit. A company doesn't want to risk cargo/customers on someone who may not be fully competent for the job.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Discrimination is still allowed though. ...there are just a few select things you are not allowed to discriminate onrawsavon
Also worth noting. If it's related to job performance and is legal to take into consideration, it's fair game.
Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easy An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.
This is why so many people stay unemployed for so long. You don't have a job? We don't want you. Have bad credit from being broke because you couldn't get a job? No way you're getting a job with us. The people who need jobs the most can't get them because there's so much unfair discrimination in the hiring process. It needs to stop.
[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"] Have you ever gone an extended period without driving? I'm not saying you forget, because you don't, but you are rather rusty at it for a bit. A company doesn't want to risk cargo/customers on someone who may not be fully competent for the job. I happen to have a CDL CIass-A, which allows me to drive up to 80,000 lb. loads. All I would have to do is pass a physical, a drug test, and a road test. Not that difficult.
Also worth noting. If it's related to job performance and is legal to take into consideration, it's fair game.
topsemag55
Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easy An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.
If they had worked at all for the past two years, that would be easier to sell.
It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision rawsavon
And we're going to have a perpetual cycle of unemployed and/or underemployed folk due to no fault of their own. Except maybe who they voted for in the past. I don't think it's right and I think it's harmful to this country.
I also don't want to be paying for benefits for these people for the rest of my life.
I want to come out on the side of business on this one, but I simply can't. Do I think it's discrimination? No. Do I think it's mean-spirited? Absolutely. Nobody is going to get back to work if this kind of crap keeps happening. I'm pretty sure the government is actually doing something about it, though. For once they're doing the right thing.
rawsavon
It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision So, what does the other person do? Or are they just SoL?
Also worth noting. If it's related to job performance and is legal to take into consideration, it's fair game.
topsemag55
Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easy An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.
You are trying to assert that work ethic gets better with age...really??? I have been working for almost 20 years and have never witnessed that (people are who they are...great and terrible workers of all ages)
If you make a claim like that, you are going to have to provide some supporting evidence Tops
Furthermore, if they were 'so great', then they would have been one of the last to be fired to begin with (great work ethic + seniority)
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easycoolbeans90
An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.
If they had worked at all for the past two years, that would be easier to sell.
Forte was working part-time, there was no reason to just flat-out reject her.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Exactly. Would you rather have an old bus driver that has not driven one for a couple years...one that will cost more (as school districts base pay on years of service) OR A younger/cheaper one that is further from retirement and has been actively driving for the last couple years All things being equal (or close to it), the choice is easyrawsavon
An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.
You are trying to assert that work ethic gets better with age...really??? I have been working for almost 20 years and have never witnessed that (people are who they are...great and terrible workers of all ages)
If you make a claim like that, you are going to have to provide some supporting evidence Tops
Furthermore, if they were 'so great', then they would have been one of the last to be fired to begin with (great work ethic + seniority)
I'll grant you that the matter of a work ethic is a personal trait.
i've been unemployed for 4 years but i've volunteered in places and interned in other to keep my skills sharp, even with that i still can't find a job...
Forte was working part-time, but wanted more work. Just because she hadn't driven for a while doesn't mean she forgot how.topsemag55
Forgetting how =/= Decreased skill I went without driving for about a year in 2009/2010, and getting back behind the wheel was an unnerving experience. I definitely didn't forget, but it took a while to get used to it again. The same goes with any skill, constant practice is required to keep it honed. It seems to me that you are taking this whole thing so far for the sake of something to harp on. No one in this world is "guaranteed" a job. It is a competition, one that can be very hotly fought.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.topsemag55
If they had worked at all for the past two years, that would be easier to sell.
Forte was working part-time, there was no reason to just flat-out reject her.
Part-time isn't really indicative of stellar work ethic. The guy previously doing 70 hours every eight days handily wins in that regard.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision airshocker
And we're going to have a perpetual cycle of unemployed and/or underemployed folk due to no fault of their own. Except maybe who they voted for in the past. I don't think it's right and I think it's harmful to this country.
I also don't want to be paying for benefits for these people for the rest of my life.
Your assertions do not fit your argument ITT though :? You say you have a problem with using this scenario as part of the criteria for hiring someone, BUT ...no matter what, someone was going to be 'left out'. So using this or not using this would not address your problem There will always be under/unemployment. That is econ 101. It is just a matter of how much. Not to mention that the economy is cyclical Furthermore, we all pay for eachother in everything we do...no getting around that.
I want to come out on the side of business on this one, but I simply can't. Do I think it's discrimination? No. Do I think it's mean-spirited? Absolutely. Nobody is going to get back to work if this kind of crap keeps happening. I'm pretty sure the government is actually doing something about it, though. For once they're doing the right thing.
BranKetra
It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision So, what does the other person do? Or are they just SoL? Why would you think otherwise :? There will always be unemployed people. That is why we have social support systems
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] An older person could also be looked at as more reliable - they would have an established work ethic, and show up for work every day.topsemag55
You are trying to assert that work ethic gets better with age...really??? I have been working for almost 20 years and have never witnessed that (people are who they are...great and terrible workers of all ages)
If you make a claim like that, you are going to have to provide some supporting evidence Tops
Furthermore, if they were 'so great', then they would have been one of the last to be fired to begin with (great work ethic + seniority)
I'll grant you that the matter of a work ethic is a personal trait. ...then you should never have brought that up as a counter point. And, as such, my points still stand
Your assertions do not fit your argument ITT though :? You say you have a problem with using this scenario as part of the criteria for hiring someone, BUT ...no matter what, someone was going to be 'left out'. So using this or not using this would not address your problem There will always be under/unemployment. That is econ 101. It is just a matter of how much. Not to mention that the economy is cyclical Furthermore, we all pay for eachother in everything we do...no getting around that. rawsavon
I have no problem with people being "left out" for legitimate reasons. Being unemployed for too long isn't a legitimate reason in my eyes. That is my problem. Not that people get left out for other reasons.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Your assertions do not fit your argument ITT though :? You say you have a problem with using this scenario as part of the criteria for hiring someone, BUT ...no matter what, someone was going to be 'left out'. So using this or not using this would not address your problem There will always be under/unemployment. That is econ 101. It is just a matter of how much. Not to mention that the economy is cyclical Furthermore, we all pay for eachother in everything we do...no getting around that. airshocker
I have no problem with people being "left out" for legitimate reasons. Being unemployed for too long isn't a legitimate reason in my eyes. That is my problem. Not that people get left out for other reasons.
Why is it not fair to factor everything in you legally can when making a hiring decision? ...tbh, I have no issue with an employer of a PRIVATE company using anything/everything as a factor (they are just not allowed to use some things legally). Public companies have ot consider the wants of all the owners (stockholders) Are you telling me you would not a question the girl in the example I gave on the first page of this thread???
...then you should never have brought that up as a counter point. And, as such, my points still standrawsavon
It's still generally a given that older people have a stronger work ethic, an older generation. Ofc it depends a lot upon what upbringing they had as children - a good parent would instill a work ethic in their child. That is what happened with me, my dad had me out running a paper route when I was 12. Always had a job ever since.
I have no problem with people being "left out" for legitimate reasons. Being unemployed for too long isn't a legitimate reason in my eyes. That is my problem. Not that people get left out for other reasons.airshocker
Context is everything. Had this woman been the best qualified candidate for this position, this thread wouldn't exist and she would have the job. She wasn't the most qualified, and wasn't picked because someone the employer thought was better suited for what they were expecting was given the position. This whole "issue" reeks of entitlement.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"] ...then you should never have brought that up as a counter point. And, as such, my points still standtopsemag55
It's still generally a given that older people have a stronger work ethic, an older generation. Ofc it depends a lot upon what upbringing they had as children - a good parent would instill a work ethic in their child. That is what happened with me, my dad had me out running a paper route when I was 12. Always had a job ever since. You have 1. done nothing to back up this assertion ( a big one at that) 2. already stated in an earlier post that it depends on the person 3. countered your assertion with your personal story/work ethic...combined with me doing the same so.. You did not back up your assertion and actually helped me to counter it with 2 points supporting my side...thanks I guess :?
I ran into this in a couple of interviews. "We see you've been unemployed for six months. Why?" Because too many employers wouldn't hire me because they couldn't stop focusing on why I've been unemployed!
It's still generally a given that older people have a stronger work ethic, an older generation. topsemag55
What a massive generalization. I work with two individuals (in a team of 7) who are 30, and 45 years older than I am, and their work ethic is the worst I have encountered in my 5 years in general employment. Older people can be lazy f***s too.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] It is not like they are closing positions instead of hiring that person...they are just choosing another candidate So no job is being lost. No matter what, only one person was going to get that specific position. I see nothing wrong with this factoring in (along with many other things) to the decision So, what does the other person do? Or are they just SoL? Why would you think otherwise :? There will always be unemployed people. That is why we have social support systemsJust asking. I mean, there are always other jobs. I just want to get it out in the open.
There needs to be a law passed against this kind of thing.
I also don't think employers should be able to check your credit unless it's somehow relevant to the job. Lots of people lose their jobs and then get behind on their mortgages or whatever, and the resulting bad credit makes it hard to find work.
Next a law will be passed saying buisnesses cannot refuse to give someone a job if they've been out of work to long.
austi722
Hopefully that does happen actually.....
because this is BS, how are people supposed to find jobs if they've been out of work for awhile? I don't care what logic anybody uses and the BS answers I'd expect here "WELL CUZ SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN OUT OF WORK FOR LESS TIME IS JUST MORE RELIABLE THEN SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN OUT FOR A LONGER TIME" such BS. Employers should higher based on credentials, not how long a person hasn't worked for.
but whatever, people will try to justify everything with assumptions. What is this conservareligionspot now? Seems like that's what off topic has turned into.
Log in to comment