We won't hire you because you have been unemployed too long

It's pretty much a "Catch 22" situation for ALL employees---even those with a solid track record.

Say you begin to fear that your employer is planning to "downsize" and that you may be among the retrenched. What do you do?

You can't risk waiting until you're laid off because then you may never be employed again!

If you decide to apply elsewhere in the hope of preempting unemployment, then you'll probably have to cite your current manager as a reference, because---let's face it---having no credible references damages your prospects at least as much as being unemployed.

However, as soon as your manager learns that you're applying for other employment, (s)he will probably question your loyalty and move you onto the shortlist of people to retrench when the downsizing occurs.

There's no way out! :cry:

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]after the election rawsavon

History teaches us everything we need to know about what happens after a Texan is elected.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.rawsavon

Off topic but about your sig. Wow, have we really lost that many people?

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Hard to say specifically (see my post to airshocker about everything making an impression). But, from a business standpoint, all things being equal...younger is better (cheaper and further from retirement)rawsavon

A person with say 5 years to go before retirment may be a better propsition in some cases than a young upstart whose lofty ambitions may be construed as being a flight risk.A blend of youth and experience is a good hiring policy to have.

I guess if your market's gone a little top heavy then rebalancing with a drive for youth makes sense. Issues can occur with too much of either generally (although yes it does depend on industry - some markets are the domain of either one or the other).

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] It is still discrimination if you don't consider the person at all.Former_Slacker

Off topic but about your sig. Wow, have we really lost that many people?

[QUOTE="Colin1192"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] Why would that matter to you, I don't get it.:?topsemag55

ah, I apologize.

Why does it matter to me? It doesn't, but from reading a couple of your posts it seemed like a logical conclusion to come to.

Although admittedly, I could very well be missing some what you were really trying to say

It's pretty much a "Catch 22" situation for ALL employees---even those with a solid track record.

Say you begin to fear that your employer is planning to "downsize" and that you may be among the retrenched. What do you do?

You can't risk waiting until you're laid off because then you may never be employed again!

If you decide to apply elsewhere in the hope of preempting unemployment, then you'll probably have to cite your current manager as a reference, because---let's face it---having no credible references damages your prospects at least as much as being unemployed.

However, as soon as your manager learns that you're applying for other employment, (s)he will probably question your loyalty and move you onto the shortlist of people to retrench when the downsizing occurs.

There's no way out! :cry:

Stesilaus

Retrenchment due to economic conditions/company performance isn't always a massive concern for any prospective employer. Issues occur if you were let go because of your performance relative to that of your peers who were kept on.

Returning to the topic, here's another thought that ran through my head: There is a static quantity of positions of employment available, and consequently some company hires an equivalent number of applicants irrespective of whether employment status is considered or not. Likewise, there will be an equal number of people receiving aid from social programs--and roughly an equal payout. Company hires applicants with the lowest associated risks, being the profit-seeking entities that they are. These employees end up being more profitable for the company when extrapolated on a nationwide scale. This, in turn, generates more tax revenue, thereby lessening the deficit and reducing the proportional burden of social welfare programs.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="Colin1192"] I'll take that as a yesColin1192

ah, I apologize.

Why does it matter to me? It doesn't, but from reading a couple of your posts it seemed like a logical conclusion to come to.

Although admittedly, I could very well be missing some what you were really trying to say

On topic: Here's another thought that ran through my head. There are a static quantity of employment positions available, and consequently so company hires an equivalent number of applicants irrespective of whether employment status is considered or not. Likewise, there will be an equal number of people receiving aid from social programs. Company hires applicants with the lowest associated risks, being the profit-seeking entities that they are. These employees end up being more profitable for the company when extrapolated on a nationwide scale. This, in turn, generates more tax revenue, thereby lessening the deficit and reducing the proportional burden of social welfare programs.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

It's pretty much a "Catch 22" situation for ALL employees---even those with a solid track record.

Say you begin to fear that your employer is planning to "downsize" and that you may be among the retrenched. What do you do?

You can't risk waiting until you're laid off because then you may never be employed again!

If you decide to apply elsewhere in the hope of preempting unemployment, then you'll probably have to cite your current manager as a reference, because---let's face it---having no credible references damages your prospects at least as much as being unemployed.

However, as soon as your manager learns that you're applying for other employment, (s)he will probably question your loyalty and move you onto the shortlist of people to retrench when the downsizing occurs.

There's no way out! :cry:

poptart

Retrenchment due to economic conditions/company performance isn't always a massive concern for any prospective employer. Issues occur if you were let go because of your performance relative to that of your peers who were kept on.

Yeah, but a job advertisement that says "The Unemployed Need Not Apply" doesn't distinguish between people who were laid off because their employers failed and people who were laid off because they failed, does it?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Exactly. Now, what do they tell you about an interview...that everything you say and do makes an impression -your resume (any errors, word choices, etc) -how you dress -how early/late you get there -how you talk -how you shake their hand ...my point is that all these things create a picture of 'you'...it all works together. It is only natural that they wonder why no one will 'date this girl'...that it is part of the impressionairshocker

I get what you're saying, but I still don't think it should be a factor.

It sounds like it's just going to be harmful to the country in the long-run.

[QUOTE="Colin1192"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] You still didn't answer the question, nor did I say yes either.topsemag55

ah, I apologize.

Why does it matter to me? It doesn't, but from reading a couple of your posts it seemed like a logical conclusion to come to.

Although admittedly, I could very well be missing some what you were really trying to say

On topic: Here's another thought that ran through my head. There are a static quantity of employment positions available, and consequently so company hires an equivalent number of applicants irrespective of whether employment status is considered or not. Likewise, there will be an equal number of people receiving aid from social programs. Company hires applicants with the lowest associated risks, being the profit-seeking entities that they are. These employees end up being more profitable for the company when extrapolated on a nationwide scale. This, in turn, generates more tax revenue, thereby lessening the deficit and reducing the proportional burden of social welfare programs.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="austi722"]Next a law will be passed saying buisnesses cannot refuse to give someone a job if they've been out of work to long.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

On topic: Here's another thought that ran through my head. There are a static quantity of employment positions available, and consequently so company hires an equivalent number of applicants irrespective of whether employment status is considered or not. Likewise, there will be an equal number of people receiving aid from social programs. Company hires applicants with the lowest associated risks, being the profit-seeking entities that they are. These employees end up being more profitable for the company when extrapolated on a nationwide scale. This, in turn, generates more tax revenue, thereby lessening the deficit and reducing the proportional burden of social welfare programs.

BranKetra

I honestly haven't a horse in the race, so I couldn't really care less. If you have anything thoughtful to add, feel free to do so.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

On topic: Here's another thought that ran through my head. There are a static quantity of employment positions available, and consequently so company hires an equivalent number of applicants irrespective of whether employment status is considered or not. Likewise, there will be an equal number of people receiving aid from social programs. Company hires applicants with the lowest associated risks, being the profit-seeking entities that they are. These employees end up being more profitable for the company when extrapolated on a nationwide scale. This, in turn, generates more tax revenue, thereby lessening the deficit and reducing the proportional burden of social welfare programs.

coolbeans90

I honestly haven't a horse in the race, so I couldn't really care less. If you have anything thoughtful to add, feel free to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Sounds like wishful thinking.BranKetra

I honestly haven't a horse in the race, so I couldn't really care less. If you have anything thoughtful to add, feel free to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The latter. I can find a subject amusing without really giving a damn about the outcome.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I honestly haven't a horse in the race, so I couldn't really care less. If you have anything thoughtful to add, feel free to do so.

coolbeans90

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The latter. I can find a subject amusing without really giving a damn about the outcome.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Are you saying you don't have anything to add to this discussion (odd response) or you don't care about this situation because it has nothing to do with you (even more odd, considering you posted earlier)? This is all kinds of weird.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

BranKetra

The latter. I can find a subject amusing without really giving a damn about the outcome.

Am I to take it that you are unfond of math? Or are you the type that dislikes prime numbers?

That's probably the reason I couldn't get a job when I was looking for one earlier this year.

How so (which was my original point to you)?

...someone is going to be left out. what does it matter if this is part of the reason person 'b' is left out...no matter what, someone was going to be unemployed

How is this worse than if it could not be a factor?

rawsavon

How is it good that someone remains chronically unemployed when they are perfectly able to do the job? How many people are unemployed in this country as a result of the economy? How many of them won't be employed again because of this policy?

Capitalism will always leave someone out. The only solution is socialism.foxhound_fox

What are you talking about and why are you talking to me about it? Last I checked, I've been talking to Raw about why I believe this a bad policy, not the "evils" of capitalism.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

It's pretty much a "Catch 22" situation for ALL employees---even those with a solid track record.

Say you begin to fear that your employer is planning to "downsize" and that you may be among the retrenched. What do you do?

You can't risk waiting until you're laid off because then you may never be employed again!

If you decide to apply elsewhere in the hope of preempting unemployment, then you'll probably have to cite your current manager as a reference, because---let's face it---having no credible references damages your prospects at least as much as being unemployed.

However, as soon as your manager learns that you're applying for other employment, (s)he will probably question your loyalty and move you onto the shortlist of people to retrench when the downsizing occurs.

There's no way out! :cry:

Stesilaus

Retrenchment due to economic conditions/company performance isn't always a massive concern for any prospective employer. Issues occur if you were let go because of your performance relative to that of your peers who were kept on.

Yeah, but a job advertisement that says "The Unemployed Need Not Apply" doesn't distinguish between people who were laid off because their employers failed and people who were laid off because they failed, does it?

Well yes you're right, although over here you can't put such a thing on an advertisment (although when the market tightens as per recently and dot com crash people have asked me not to send them anyone currently unemployed).

Now, the article in question cites a consultant advising her she wouldn't be considered for unemployment - that's a different ball game in itself because the fee attached to the process. It's a little silly for the consultant to say she's unemployable - that's lacking in tact and probably incorrect as it's more that the consultant would be unable to get a fee from her. I've told many a person over the years I would love to be able to help them out, but unfortunately my clients expectations are 'x' if they're to pay a six figure fee for sourcing the right 'talent', therefore going to companies directly would be better, and I would merely be a hinderence not a help.

Now my advice to her would be a) avoid going through consultancies and thereby mitigate increased level risk perceived by potential employers where a fee is involved; and b) embelish a little on the resume - say she decided to take time out to focus on motherhood/go travelling/etc, not simply leave a hole on her resume where she's been looking for work.

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 oldrawsavon

Wouldn't the analogy be the girl hadn't dated for two years, then finally went on a date and it went very poorly?

Why was she laid of in the first place? Why was she picked to be laid off instead of the other drivers? Obviously she wasn't one of the better employees. Or maybe she was. This is the point, though. The employer has no freaking clue. Why risk it?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

How so (which was my original point to you)?

...someone is going to be left out. what does it matter if this is part of the reason person 'b' is left out...no matter what, someone was going to be unemployed

How is this worse than if it could not be a factor?

airshocker

How is it good that someone remains chronically unemployed when they are perfectly able to do the job? How many people are unemployed in this country as a result of the economy? How many of them won't be employed again because of this policy?

Correct me if I'm wrong: You're a police officer, right?

In a perverse way, policies like this are beneficial to you: More chronic unemployment => More desperate people => More crime => Greater job security!

:P

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] It's pretty much needed though. There are so many people who have been unemployed for years thanks to the recession that if this hiring practice is allowed to continue a large segment of the population will NEVER recover. It's especially ugly for recently graduated college students who can't find a job because they have the worst of all worlds: No experience AND an employment gap. Then you consider the fact that that demographic is also seeing unemployment rates of about 40% and also collectively owes debts that dwarf that of the subprime loan market before its collapse (except that the debts can't be discharged) and we've got another economic meltdown that IS going to happen if nothing is done to remedy the situation. I mean, you thought the current recession was bad? Wait until the country's entire economy evaporates overnight because you have an entire generation of people who are going to be unemployed/underemployed and in massive debt for their entire lives, debts btw, that will never be repaid. So, yeah, we do need laws to prevent employers from discriminating on employment history, credit background, and age if we want to prevent all the problems that come from having a lost generation.MrGeezer

I'm not going to refute it per se, although employment policies are not at fault regarding the level of unemployment - that's another issue altogether. Regardless discrimination will always exist whether laws are in place or not, and in reality discrimination is extremely hard to prove unless people are as candid as the person in this article.

Discrimination you find is heightened in reccesions, as a) investment into new employees needs to be as risk free as possible; and b) the greater volume of those looking for work, the easier it is to narrow the specifications of the person you want to hire.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]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 oldOptical_Order

Wouldn't the analogy be the girl hadn't dated for two years, then finally went on a date and it went very poorly?

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Discrimination should be allowed and is almost always a good thing. amphitheater

Probably didn't occur to you that that is a form of discrimination.

Discriminating against applications who aren't qualified is a good thing. I assume you'd agree, based on what you just said.

Anyway, I think that's what thegerg was saying.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

How so (which was my original point to you)?

...someone is going to be left out. what does it matter if this is part of the reason person 'b' is left out...no matter what, someone was going to be unemployed

How is this worse than if it could not be a factor?

airshocker

How is it good that someone remains chronically unemployed when they are perfectly able to do the job? How many people are unemployed in this country as a result of the economy? How many of them won't be employed again because of this policy?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] It's pretty much needed though. There are so many people who have been unemployed for years thanks to the recession that if this hiring practice is allowed to continue a large segment of the population will NEVER recover. It's especially ugly for recently graduated college students who can't find a job because they have the worst of all worlds: No experience AND an employment gap. Then you consider the fact that that demographic is also seeing unemployment rates of about 40% and also collectively owes debts that dwarf that of the subprime loan market before its collapse (except that the debts can't be discharged) and we've got another economic meltdown that IS going to happen if nothing is done to remedy the situation. I mean, you thought the current recession was bad? Wait until the country's entire economy evaporates overnight because you have an entire generation of people who are going to be unemployed/underemployed and in massive debt for their entire lives, debts btw, that will never be repaid. So, yeah, we do need laws to prevent employers from discriminating on employment history, credit background, and age if we want to prevent all the problems that come from having a lost generation.poptart

I'm not going to refute it per se, although employment policies are not at fault regarding the level of unemployment - that's another issue altogether. Regardless discrimination will always exist whether laws are in place or not, and in reality discrimination is extremely hard to prove unless people are as candid as the person in this article.

Discrimination you find is heightened in reccesions, as a) investment into new employees needs to be as risk free as possible; and b) the greater volume of those looking for work, the easier it is to narrow the specifications of the person you want to hire.

In other words: When the supply of candidates exceeds the demand, the employer benefits immensely and the employees suffer.

That applies beyond the hiring phase too, as employers get to squeeze more labour for less pay from employees who are terrified of being kicked out to join the unemployed throngs.

It also explains why most corporations won't lift a finger to end the recession unless government does intervene with some sort of legislation.

You'd think the CEOs would realize that growing poverty and unemployment will ultimately affect their markets and constrain their growth, but in practice the "jobless recovery" here in the U.S. suggests that most CEOs are quite willing to see the recession drag on indefinitely so that they can continue to benefit from the higher profit margins that attend it.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] I see your point and it sounds pretty valid. I'm sure that someone could refute it. But based on the little that I know, what you're saying seems to be pretty sound. Stesilaus

I'm not going to refute it per se, although employment policies are not at fault regarding the level of unemployment - that's another issue altogether. Regardless discrimination will always exist whether laws are in place or not, and in reality discrimination is extremely hard to prove unless people are as candid as the person in this article.

Discrimination you find is heightened in reccesions, as a) investment into new employees needs to be as risk free as possible; and b) the greater volume of those looking for work, the easier it is to narrow the specifications of the person you want to hire.

In other words: When the supply of candidates exceeds the demand, the employer benefits immensely and the employees suffer.

That applies beyond the hiring phase too, as employers get to squeeze more labour for less pay from employees who are terrified of being kicked out to join the unemployed throngs.

It also explains why most corporations won't lift a finger to end the recession unless government does intervene with some sort of legislation.

You'd think the CEOs would realize that growing poverty and unemployment will ultimately affect their markets and constrain their growth, but in practice the "jobless recovery" here in the U.S. suggests that most CEOs are quite willing to see the recession drag on indefinitely so that they can continue to benefit from the higher profit margins that attend it.

That's pretty much right - likewise when the economy is bouyant and there's a talent shortage, then the power reverts back to those looking for work (to a point) and they can 'discriminate' against any potential employer. It's always a see saw; never/rarely is there any equilibirum.

You can't use any argument against the unemployed that could not be applied to any "protected" group. At best, all one could argue is that being unemployed indirectly effects qualifications due to assumptions that they have gotten rusty or wouldn't be unemployed if they were qualified. However, these assumptions do not actually take into consideration an individual's qualifications and reek of the same logic used to turn down blacks (supposedly more likely to be criminals) and women (more likely to get pregnant and need time off).Stereotypes like these should have no place in our society where we at least pay lip service to the importance of the "individual".

Already had 4 jobs, I am 20 :_)

You can't use any argument against the unemployed that could not be applied to any other "protected" group. At best, all one could argue is that being unemployed indirectly effects qualifications due to assumptions that they have gotten rusty or wouldn't be unemployed if they were qualified. However, these assumptions do not actually take into consideration an individual's qualifications and reek of the same logic used to turn down blacks (supposedly more likely to be criminals) and women (more likely to get pregnant and need time off).Stereotypes like these should have no place in our society where we at least pay lip service to the importance of the "individual".

EntropyWins

Women are more a little more likely to get pregnant than men though (or so I've heard)

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The latter. I can find a subject amusing without really giving a damn about the outcome.

coolbeans90

Am I to take it that you are unfond of math? Or are you the type that dislikes prime numbers?

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

You can't use any argument against the unemployed that could not be applied to any other "protected" group. At best, all one could argue is that being unemployed indirectly effects qualifications due to assumptions that they have gotten rusty or wouldn't be unemployed if they were qualified. However, these assumptions do not actually take into consideration an individual's qualifications and reek of the same logic used to turn down blacks (supposedly more likely to be criminals) and women (more likely to get pregnant and need time off).Stereotypes like these should have no place in our society where we at least pay lip service to the importance of the "individual".

poptart

Women are more a little more likely to get pregnant than men though (or so I've heard)