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

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[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.

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

1. one issue is about there not being enough chairs for people to sit in (lack of jobs like you are talking about)
2. the other issue is about deciding who gets to sit in those chairs...the criteria we can use (this topic)

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="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

rawsavon

1. one issue is about there not being enough chairs for people to sit in (lack of jobs like you are talking about)
2. the other issue is about deciding who gets to sit in those chairs...the criteria we can use (this topic)

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] It could because of the bad state of the U.S. economy. It probably has some relevance to people, so it's being put into context. To me, people bringing up this could be a hint an underlying issue of not enough of a particular job in the real world (the ones who aren't directly saying it relates).

BranKetra

1. one issue is about there not being enough chairs for people to sit in (lack of jobs like you are talking about)
2. the other issue is about deciding who gets to sit in those chairs...the criteria we can use (this topic)

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] That's fine. And I agree we have some major job related issues (there not being enough jobs).
But this topic has nothing to do with that...it is apples and oranges.

1. one issue is about there not being enough chairs for people to sit in (lack of jobs like you are talking about)
2. the other issue is about deciding who gets to sit in those chairs...the criteria we can use (this topic)

rawsavon

surrealnumber5

If you want to lower unemployment rates and help the bigger picture while filling an open position, you don't screen out people who have been unemployed for awhile. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they've been making an effort to get a job, and consider their qualifications along with attitude, etc..

I know that many companies feel that they're doing themselves a favor by "filtering" out those who have been unemployed for some time. In fact, there are companies that won't hire anyone who is unemployed.. even if it's only for a month or 2. These are the types of practices that are hurting our economy and need to be outlawed. If you want to lower unemployment rates, start here. Now of course employers are going to hire the people who they feel can do the best job.. But they need to accept that someone being unemployed doesn't necessarily diminish their qualifications. In an economy like this, it could just as well mean that they had some bad luck. We're not in normal circumstances, and companies will not survive and prosper in the long-term if they continue to hurt the bigger economic picture by using broad, sweeping filters like this one.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you want to lower unemployment rates and help the bigger picture while filling an open position, you don't screen out people who have been unemployed for awhile. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they've been making an effort to get a job, and consider their qualifications along with attitude, etc..

I know that many companies feel that they're doing themselves a favor by "filtering" out those who have been unemployed for some time. In fact, there are companies that won't hire anyone who is unemployed.. even if it's only for a month or 2. These are the types of practices that are hurting our economy and need to be outlawed. If you want to lower unemployment rates, start here. Now of course employers are going to hire the people who they feel can do the best job.. But they need to accept that someone being unemployed doesn't necessarily diminish their qualifications. In an economy like this, it could just as well mean that they had some bad luck. We're not in normal circumstances, and companies will not survive and prosper in the long-term if they continue to hurt the bigger economic picture by using broad, sweeping filters like this one.

thegerg

Actually the issue is more one of standards than available jobs, due to the rapidly changing hiring requirements of employers. The number of chairs isn't the main issue from what I've seen. We have different types of jobs with different requirements available now than even existed 10-15 years ago. Many jobs now require special expertise that relatively few applicants currently have. Their skill sets are rendered obsolete by an economy that is evolving faster than they can or are willing to keep up. When faced with this problem there are only 2 possible solutions- Either the unemployed and underemployed rapidly learn new skills (unrealistic on a mass scale), or employers must take on the burden of hiring and properly training people. There are actually quite a few employers who can't find people that satisfy their requirements, so they are struggling to fill positions. It's more an issue of employers feeling that they need a dozen 1/8th inch bolts to fill their open positions, but the bolts applying for the jobs are mostly 1/4 inchers. The result is a great number of unemployed people who are scratching their heads, and a bunch of companies that are doing the same. Either the companies or the government will have to make some changes to help those bolts resize themselves to fit the new openings, because they aren't going to be able to do it on their own. The world is changing too rapidly.

Just a tidbit-

https://candidate.manpower.com/wps/wcm/connect/21ceb1804322b4e5a8ecee4f3871948a/Daily+Sun_+June+01.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

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

rawsavon

My argument isn't flawed just because you disagree with it. I'm still of the mind that this is a bad policy by business.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

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

airshocker

My argument isn't flawed just because you disagree with it. I'm still of the mind that this is a bad policy by business.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

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

rawsavon

My argument isn't flawed just because you disagree with it. I'm still of the mind that this is a bad policy by business.

Then please demonstrate a job where time away does not erode your skills...a major part of your argument

rawsavon

I believe what I said is: If someone is as qualified as another person but the only thing disqualifying them was the length of time they were unemployed, that's wrong and shouldn't be a factor.

Then I believe I added, as a caveat, that there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills. Which I'm sure there are, but I wasn't making that into an argument.

Then I believe I added, as a caveat, that there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills. Which I'm sure there are, but I wasn't making that into an argument.

airshocker

[QUOTE="jediknight52501"]she is being discriminated against, she should sue.thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="jediknight52501"]she is being discriminated against, she should sue.jediknight52501

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="jediknight52501"]she is being discriminated against, she should sue.jediknight52501

Fo sho yo. That's why I like to hire employees by drawing out of a hat.

There needs to be laws against this, I heard a few states were considering doing that.

The obvious solution is a growing economy, NOT another gd law telling individuals how to run their businesses.

Its a buyers market out there right now. Fewer jobs than there are applicants. Of course businesses are going to be pickier when they can afford to be.

As others have pointed out already, discrimination is an obvious, necessary part of the selection process when hiring. Otherwise you'd just take the first person who walked in saying they wanted the job.

This is how its going to be at least until Nov 2012. What happens after that will depend on who's in charge of the govt.

The economy is in the **** right now, alot of people (and I mean ALOT) are unemployed because they lost their jobs and no ones hiring, not because they are lazy. That's not right to take that into consideration when hiring somone, the best advice I can give is do some volunteer work while your unemployed to make your resume look a little better.

Still this company should understand the situation right now...

Then please back up that assertion. I will show relevance once you do (just like I did before when I promised to do so)

rawsavon

Why? That's not the the matter I'm really concerned about or arguing for. I don't really see why you would need to show relevance. I understand the idea behind hiring the best-qualified people for the job and I'm not against that kind of policy at all, but nothing said in this thread has convinced me that discarding people out of hand because they're currently unemployed is a good practice and won't harm this country in the long run.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="jediknight52501"]she is being discriminated against, she should sue.jediknight52501

Oh so if you apply to a job you're clearly not qualified for and they turn you down you should be able to sue for discrimination? Yes, they are discriminating against you because you do not fit their needed criteria.

They probably have had bad experiances with hiring people who have been out of the industry for to long.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Then please back up that assertion. I will show relevance once you do (just like I did before when I promised to do so)

airshocker

Why? That's not the the matter I'm really concerned about or arguing for. I don't really see why you would need to show relevance. I understand the idea behind hiring the best-qualified people for the job and I'm not against that kind of policy at all, but nothing said in this thread has convinced me that discarding people out of hand because they're currently unemployed is a good practice and won't harm this country in the long run.

i have a right to my opinion.jediknight52501

The obvious solution is a growing economy, NOT another gd law telling individuals how to run their businesses.

collegeboy64

Well it's clearly true that growing the economy is the best solution to this and a host of other problems.

The question is whether that can happen without some sort of government intervention.

This is how its going to be at least until Nov 2012. What happens after that will depend on who's in charge of the govt.

collegeboy64

Well, what happens after November 2012 doesn't matter much, since the world will have ended within two months. :P

TBH, it seems that you can't back up the assertion you made...this one in particular: "that there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills." That is a fundamental part of this issue. It plays a part in the hiring process (same as employers putting weight on GPA or references or any other criteria). It is why it is not against the law to use time away as a factor (same as GPA, etc). Without that as a basis, all one is left with is a 'feeling' that something is wrong...with no weight/merit behind the pointrawsavon

Again, just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean there isn't any weight behind my statement.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]TBH, it seems that you can't back up the assertion you made...this one in particular: "that there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills." That is a fundamental part of this issue. It plays a part in the hiring process (same as employers putting weight on GPA or references or any other criteria). It is why it is not against the law to use time away as a factor (same as GPA, etc). Without that as a basis, all one is left with is a 'feeling' that something is wrong...with no weight/merit behind the pointairshocker

Again, just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean there isn't any weight behind my statement.

Then please back up your assertion and show me the weight/merit. I am open minded and more than willing to listen. But you are going to have to provide some evidence...more so than "some jobs". And if you are unwilling to back up an assertion, then why get involved in a debate? If all you want is to be happy with an opinion, then why not just keep it to yourself?rawsavon

You don't have to agree with me but don't condescend me and pretend you're the authority on what opinions have weight/merit in this thread.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]What's the reasoning behind it?topsemag55

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Then please back up your assertion and show me the weight/merit. I am open minded and more than willing to listen. But you are going to have to provide some evidence...more so than "some jobs". And if you are unwilling to back up an assertion, then why get involved in a debate? If all you want is to be happy with an opinion, then why not just keep it to yourself?airshocker

You don't have to agree with me but don't condescend me and pretend you're the authority on what opinions have weight/merit in this thread.

I am not being condescending at all :?
Opinions carry weight if there is some validity to them...if there is some back up/evidence for them.
I am more than willing to consider your assertion as valid. But you are going to have to provide some evidence

You said that you don't think 'time away' should be able to be used as a discriminating factor (like GPA, resume, professional dress/actions, etc).
I said that time away is just a valid a reason as the others as it erodes one's skills and leaves people 'out of the loop'.
You countered with "there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills"

so in the words of juvenile...back, back, back it up
*language warning*

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

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

rawsavon

My argument isn't flawed just because you disagree with it. I'm still of the mind that this is a bad policy by business.

I think for some industry's you are correct but Driving a Bus is a tad different to being out of Aero Dynamics and not continuing to study it for those 2 Years.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] That's fine. And I agree we have some major job related issues (there not being enough jobs).
But this topic has nothing to do with that...it is apples and oranges.

1. one issue is about there not being enough chairs for people to sit in (lack of jobs like you are talking about)
2. the other issue is about deciding who gets to sit in those chairs...the criteria we can use (this topic)

rawsavon

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Then please back up your assertion and show me the weight/merit. I am open minded and more than willing to listen. But you are going to have to provide some evidence...more so than "some jobs". And if you are unwilling to back up an assertion, then why get involved in a debate? If all you want is to be happy with an opinion, then why not just keep it to yourself?rawsavon

You don't have to agree with me but don't condescend me and pretend you're the authority on what opinions have weight/merit in this thread.

I am not being condescending at all :?
Opinions carry weight if there is some validity to them...if there is some back up/evidence for them.
I am more than willing to consider your assertion as valid. But you are going to have to provide some evidence

You said that you don't think 'time away' should be able to be used as a discriminating factor (like GPA, resume, professional dress/actions, etc).
I said that time away is just a valid a reason as the others as it erodes one's skills and leaves people 'out of the loop'.
You countered with "there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills"

so in the words of juvenile...back, back, back it up
*language warning*

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

My argument isn't flawed just because you disagree with it. I'm still of the mind that this is a bad policy by business.

jwsoul

I think for some industry's you are correct but Driving a Bus is a tad different to being out of Aero Dynamics and not continuing to study it for those 2 Years.

I am not being condescending at all :?
Opinions carry weight if there is some validity to them...if there is some back up/evidence for them.
I am more than willing to consider your assertion as valid. But you are going to have to provide some evidence

You said that you don't think 'time away' should be able to be used as a discriminating factor (like GPA, resume, professional dress/actions, etc).
I said that time away is just a valid a reason as the others as it erodes one's skills and leaves people 'out of the loop'.
You countered with "there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills"

so in the words of juvenile...back, back, back it up
*language warning*

rawsavon

What isn't valid about me not agreeing with you that time away shouldn't be considered as a disqualifying factor? That's what we're talking about, not the statement you quoted and put in red which I admitted may be incorrect.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

I am not being condescending at all :?
Opinions carry weight if there is some validity to them...if there is some back up/evidence for them.
I am more than willing to consider your assertion as valid. But you are going to have to provide some evidence

You said that you don't think 'time away' should be able to be used as a discriminating factor (like GPA, resume, professional dress/actions, etc).
I said that time away is just a valid a reason as the others as it erodes one's skills and leaves people 'out of the loop'.
You countered with "there are some jobs out there where time doesn't erode your skills"

so in the words of juvenile...back, back, back it up
*language warning*

airshocker

What isn't valid about me not agreeing with you that time away shouldn't be considered as a disqualifying factor? That's what we're talking about, not the statement you quoted and put in red which I admitted may be incorrect.

This is the first I HAVE SEEN where you said you might be incorrect. :?
If it is incorrect, then time away will always erode your skills...maybe by 75% if you are gone for 25 years (use w/e % you want)...maybe 50% if gone 10 years...maybe 25% if gone 5 years...all the way down to one day.

Now this % will be very small if you are not gone for very long.
But if there is ANY erosion at all = a difference in the quality of two candidates. T
hat is just as valid as GPA or any other measure they want to use to separate 2 candidates from one another

So now you have admitted that you may be incorrect (that there are no jobs where time away does not erode your skill set). So now we come to an agreement that time away is a detriment. But you don't think employers should be able to factor that in...very puzzling stance IMO :?

This is the first I HAVE SEEN where you said you might be incorrect. :?
If it is incorrect, then time away will always erode your skills...maybe by 75% if you are gone for 25 years (use w/e % you want)...maybe 50% if gone 10 years...maybe 25% if gone 5 years...all the way down to one day.

Now this % will be very small if you are not gone for very long.
But if there is ANY erosion at all = a difference in the quality of two candidates. T
hat is just as valid as GPA or any other measure they want to use to separate 2 candidates from one another

So now you have admitted that you may be incorrect (that there are no jobs where time away does not erode your skill set). So now we come to an agreement that time away is a detriment. But you don't think employers should be able to factor that in...very puzzling stance IMO :?

rawsavon

I meant to put it in one of my earlier posts after I couldn't think of any jobs beside unskilled labor.

It's not a stance I normally take, being against business, but I don't see these unemployed folk getting back to work if this is also stacked against them. I don't think that's something we as a country can afford.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

This is the first I HAVE SEEN where you said you might be incorrect. :?
If it is incorrect, then time away will always erode your skills...maybe by 75% if you are gone for 25 years (use w/e % you want)...maybe 50% if gone 10 years...maybe 25% if gone 5 years...all the way down to one day.

Now this % will be very small if you are not gone for very long.
But if there is ANY erosion at all = a difference in the quality of two candidates. T
hat is just as valid as GPA or any other measure they want to use to separate 2 candidates from one another

So now you have admitted that you may be incorrect (that there are no jobs where time away does not erode your skill set). So now we come to an agreement that time away is a detriment. But you don't think employers should be able to factor that in...very puzzling stance IMO :?

airshocker

I meant to put it in one of my earlier posts after I couldn't think of any jobs beside unskilled labor.

It's not a stance I normally take, being against business, but I don't see these unemployed folk getting back to work if this is also stacked against them. I don't think that's something we as a country can afford.

Then the jobless should just kill themselves. Why not? They have zero hope of ever working again in their life. No money..they cant pay bills, taxes on homes, medical costs, child support, etc. They just lose everything they ever had over time, then what? Your life is over.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Will time off of work affect an applicant's skills? Probably. But I don't think that it necessarily follows that employers should be able to use length of time unemployed as grounds for ignoring all other qualifications..rawsavon

"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."

Apparently, they didn't this time.