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

If you allow for any type of discrimination based on time 'away', then you have to allow for them all...you don't get to pick and choose.
UNLESS
You have a law for every industry and every size company...good luck sorting that out in the courts

I chose 25 years as an extreme example. But in some industries, 2 years is too long (things have changed so much in that time).
So unless you want the courts to decide each case...set a precedent in each one (and want to pay for that), then it is an all or none game

rawsavon

And if they don't know the industry as it is, they shouldn't be hired. I'm not saying companies should be forced to hire people who aren't qualified. I don't know where you got that idea since it didn't come from me.

There are some jobs where time doesn't affect your skill-set.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

As I've said in previous posts, if a person is qualified for the job, the amount of time they'd unemployed for shouldn't be a determinating factor on whether they're hired.

Obviously someone who hasn't been doing a certain job for 25 years wion't know the technology, practices, etc of the present times. But I'm pretty sure you knew I wasn't suggesting anything like that.

rawsavon

If you allow for any type of discrimination based on time 'away', then you have to allow for them all...you don't get to pick and choose.
UNLESS
You have a law for every industry and every size company...good luck sorting that out in the courts

I chose 25 years as an extreme example. But in some industries, 2 years is too long (things have changed so much in that time).
So unless you want the courts to decide each case...set a precedent in each one (and want to pay for that), then it is an all or none game

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"].EntropyWins

There are some jobs where time doesn't affect your skill-set.

airshocker

Seriously, any prolonged time away from work and you'll be a little rusty. Personally i wouldn't feel safe on a bus with someone who's "still getting used to it" as a driver.

There are some jobs where time doesn't affect your skill-set.

airshocker

There is no job that exists like that.
...time affects all industries and people...without fail

But I agree that that is the crux of your argument (though it is flawed IMO).
IF you can prove that there is, then you have 'won' and I will concede to you

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"].MrGeezer

Businesses could develop qualification exams for unemployed workers looking to get back to work. It would be something to ensure he/she is up to date with current protocols.

BranKetra

Many businesses do use those...those that feel they serve them best.
BUT
Are you going to force (legislate) all industries to use them.
...keep in mind that all costs are eventually passed on to the consumer OR are cut from the budget elsewhere.
So you will either pay for those tests as a consumer or they might have to fire more people to pay for them

Tests might also work better for some jobs than others.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="poptart"]

They're obviously more prone to requiing time off then.

poptart

No, but if you're a small business and 3 female employees get pregnant then that can be very damaging. I'm not saying I agree with it, but you can see from a small business owners perspective wanting to protect his bottom line.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"] ...and they are a protected group. You can't put a sign outside that says Women need not apply. Just because women as a group are more likely to get pregnant than men does not mean you can disregard the individual woman. amphitheater

No, but if you're a small business and 3 female employees get pregnant then that can be very damaging. I'm not saying I agree with it, but you can see from a small business owners perspective wanting to protect his bottom line.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"] ...and they are a protected group. You can't put a sign outside that says Women need not apply. Just because women as a group are more likely to get pregnant than men does not mean you can disregard the individual woman. amphitheater

No, but if you're a small business and 3 female employees get pregnant then that can be very damaging. I'm not saying I agree with it, but you can see from a small business owners perspective wanting to protect his bottom line.

Alas it's true.

Let's rewind, say, 5 years when the economy was solid and there's a deep skills shortage. If you're a business with 6 employees; 2 of whom are on the cusp of taking a year off then it may be extremely hard to replace/fill in during their absence. That's the reality of it unfortunately. If you're a business owner and you're interviewing a 28 year old girl getting married in 6 months, it may well factor into your decision making process. It does happen.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Businesses could develop qualification exams for unemployed workers looking to get back to work. It would be something to ensure he/she is up to date with current protocols.

rawsavon

Many businesses do use those...those that feel they serve them best.
BUT
Are you going to force (legislate) all industries to use them.
...keep in mind that all costs are eventually passed on to the consumer OR are cut from the budget elsewhere.
So you will either pay for those tests as a consumer or they might have to fire more people to pay for them

@ Entropywins

Recent posts in this thread have caused me to realize that if your post were to replace "black" women "women", then the comparison to unemployed people would be valid.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"] So you don't think it is a little unfair to force people to decide between their morals and their financial well being? I think people can still care about things like poverty and child labor, but still at the end of the day want to make the decision (maybe even reluctantly) that will be best for themselves.

rawsavon

No...I don't...not even in the slightest.
Life is all about resource allocation (money, time, affection...we all only have so much to give).

This situation is no different.

When people care 'enough', they act.
If walmart was mistreating puppies by the millions like they are their workers, something would be done.
There are already many people that refuse to shop there b/c that reflects their value system and its hierarchy.

...the fact that things are the way they are though shows (to me) that that is not how the majority feels

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Clearly someone's never heard of a maternity leave...amphitheater

Probably the optimal method of resolving gender equality with cost.

I don't know. I guess it comes down to what's more important: the company's immediate profits or the country where it's based in and the prosperity of it, too? The company could maintain a profitable business for a while, then move to another country/market if things get bad. On the other hand, a nation doesn't really have that option AFAIK.

BranKetra

why do people keep bringing up employment numbers?

there was only 1 spot. someone was going to get it and someone was not...no matter what, someone was not going to get a chair when the music stopped.
all we are talking about is deciding what people can use to make the choice of who gets a chair...not how many chairs there are

[QUOTE="amphitheater"][QUOTE="poptart"]

No, but if you're a small business and 3 female employees get pregnant then that can be very damaging. I'm not saying I agree with it, but you can see from a small business owners perspective wanting to protect his bottom line.

poptart

Alas it's true.

Let's rewind, say, 5 years when the economy was solid and there's a deep skills shortage. If you're a business with 6 employees; 2 of whom are on the cusp of taking a year off then it may be extremely hard to replace/fill in during their absence. That's the reality of it unfortunately. If you're a business owner and you're interviewing a 28 year old girl getting married in 6 months, it may well factor into your decision making process. It does happen.

Well, at least your opinions are consistent, which is better than most (including myself). I have to say I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, though. Your point about puppy mistreatment does bring to the forefront some issues we have as a society , but I'm still not comfortable with the free market being allowed to decide what types of discrimination and exploitation are allowed thus forcing people to choose between their own welfare and the welfare of others. With that logic, it seems that slavery could very well still be legal in some states, since it would be good for the economy by making more cheap goods available.

EntropyWins

IF america had not shown that it will rise up 'when it really wants to', then I would be inclined to agree with you.
But that it not the case. I mean it sucks admitting that we (as a nation) don't really care about workers...but the proof is in the pudding. If we did, then we would do something.

All the labor laws we have are a result of the people and their wishes
-businesses did not wake up one day and decide they want them
-politicians did not decide one day to vote in more regulations that nobody gave a s*** about
...those laws reflected the will/desires of the people (and so do the ones now...the truth just hurts sometimes)

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="amphitheater"] So now being pregnant is a liability and loss to businesses? Come on, who cares if their pregnant? If they can do the job right, then that won't be a liability as opposed to someone who can't get pregnant who has no production.amphitheater

Alas it's true.

Let's rewind, say, 5 years when the economy was solid and there's a deep skills shortage. If you're a business with 6 employees; 2 of whom are on the cusp of taking a year off then it may be extremely hard to replace/fill in during their absence. That's the reality of it unfortunately. If you're a business owner and you're interviewing a 28 year old girl getting married in 6 months, it may well factor into your decision making process. It does happen.

Ah it isn't me, just a scenario of how these things can impact a business :P

And it's not the employer granting leave; rather the maternity policy that forces the hand of the employer.

And logic suggests that a 28 year old newlywed is pretty ripe, and side-by-side with a mail equivalent - inseperable in terms of ability/culture fit/etc - the employer may discriminate against the female on the basis she may well be up for spawning one out.

[QUOTE="amphitheater"][QUOTE="poptart"]

Alas it's true.

Let's rewind, say, 5 years when the economy was solid and there's a deep skills shortage. If you're a business with 6 employees; 2 of whom are on the cusp of taking a year off then it may be extremely hard to replace/fill in during their absence. That's the reality of it unfortunately. If you're a business owner and you're interviewing a 28 year old girl getting married in 6 months, it may well factor into your decision making process. It does happen.

poptart

Ah it isn't me, just a scenario of how these things can impact a business :P

And it's not the employer granting leave; rather the maternity policy that forces the hand of the employer.

And logic suggests that a 28 year old newlywed is pretty ripe, and side-by-side with a mail equivalent - inseperable in terms of ability/culture fit/etc - the employer may discriminate against the female on the basis she may well be up for spawning one out.

maybe being unemployed is a bad thing, and waiting YEARS! to try to change your situation speaks volumes for the kind of person you are.

Total BS, why should it matter.ultimameteora

That gap where you or such & such hasn't been working could be easily explained. You can say you've been bouncing around from place to place as a temp thru various staffing agencies and didn't know how to list all the places you've been sent to without making the resume look sloppy.

In any event, if worse comes to worst, might as well hit up a temp agency. Many agencies have temp-to-hire positions available with decent pay as a temp which can potentially lead to even better pay/benefits if you happen to go permanant.

Well that makes a lotta sense -_- fastesttruck

Remeber this is a recruitment firm that's saying this - a commercial enterprise which exists to generate money, not provide help to the unemployed. The consultant in question was merely following instructions as given to him/her by the company (who are a high volume/low margin firm in general) or directly from fedex, and he/she was a little more candid than they should have been. This happens all the time (in my experience firms use external consultancices to stipulate discriminative preferences which otherwise wouldn't be allowed). As for why this occured, well there's a few reasons floating about back a few paged which pretty much sums it up (although that doesn't mean it's neccesary a water tight hiring policy)

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I don't know. I guess it comes down to what's more important: the company's immediate profits or the country where it's based in and the prosperity of it, too? The company could maintain a profitable business for a while, then move to another country/market if things get bad. On the other hand, a nation doesn't really have that option AFAIK.

rawsavon

why do people keep bringing up employment numbers?

there was only 1 spot. someone was going to get it and someone was not...no matter what, someone was not going to get a chair when the music stopped.
all we are talking about is deciding what people can use to make the choice of who gets a chair...not how many chairs there are

While I certainly feel for people who have been out of work for an extended period, I see nothing wrong with employers only seeking those whom are currently/recently working.

My dad a few years ago had a very good job working as an IT. But then the company had to lay off a bunch of people, including him.

He did his best looking for another job, but no one was hiring IT's. luckily after almost a year he finally got hire again, although with a much lower salary. sometime it hard now for him to pay bills.

Many people got lay off back then, a lot from manufacturing. I think what could also be done to help this unemployment issue is to include education for those wanting a new career path. It's cost so much for higher edcuation now a days, that even though i want that education so i can get a job i would be happy with, it may never will happen since i don;t have money to pay their dam tution rates.

just my two cents on this issule

I suppose it would be unfair if there was a surplus of available jobs, but America's experiencing a surplus of available workers so it's not wrong to be more selective.

I guess I can see where they are coming from. Can't say that's why I wouldn't hire a person but I don't regularly have to employ people. I'm sure their reasoning comes from some prior experience with dealing with people who haven't been working that job for an extended period of time.

I guess it's really easy to point fingers and make enemies out of people, but I think we need a little more context from the company on this one.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="amphitheater"] No. I'm saying, you as a job seeker should first look into the requirements of what the job entails, rather than gung-ho all out to apply for the job you have no knowledge of. That's got nothing to do with discrimination. That's common sense. Would you go and apply to be a heart surgeon when you are a computer engineer?amphitheater

If I were a hiring manager, I'm not sure I would limit my choices to ONLY those that are working. BUT, I can understand why some companies might want to do that.

During this recession, a LOT of people have been laid off in my field. Although many quality people were let go, it stands to reason that the ones that have managed to stay employed are the cream of the crop.