Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply
Chris Isidore, senior writer, On Wednesday June 16, 2010, 4:26 am EDT
The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.
Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.
"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."
Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.
That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.
After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.
Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.
But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.
"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.
She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.
"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.
It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.
"Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."
Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.
Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.
"It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them."
Have you had trouble even applying for a job because you are out of work? If so e-mail us here to tell us your story.
IF persons past company laid them off instead of other people in their department... there is generally a good reason and quite often it has a lot to do with the capability and talent of the person relative to other people at the company who were not laid off (not always true but typical).
Employers don't want to settle for B-list team members when they can get A-list talent more only a little more. And even if a person really is A-list talent and just highly unfortunate, employers don't know them from Adam or Eve don't want to take that risk when so much A-talent is available.
Sucks
Most reputable companies lay off in an organized fashion. Example: Least senior go out first and so on.
It has nothing to do with A Team, B team etc...
I can see that, especially for technical jobs. If I was looking someone to fill a three month contract position, for example, I wouldn't want to pick a programmer or IT guy who's skills are rusty because they've been out of work for a year.
This is what I was thinking. When times are good companies carry a lot of dead weight in employees that under perform or are simply not very good. When the layoffs come due to economic issues companies don't get rid of their best people, they use the opportunity to trim the fat. In a lot of cases the statement "lost his job due to no fault of his own" when talking about layoffs is simply not correct. They were let go due to performance issues in reality it was just disguised in the layoffs.
You really can't make that generalization. It varies tremendously from company to company, and even within a company depending on the department or the impetus for the layoffs. Among the considerations I've seen used:Not sure what you mean with "reputable", but smart companies use this opportunity to make sure they retain the most effective. Using any kind of systematic seniority based approach makes no sense whatsoever, that must be some sort of union logic (ie, dumb idea).
There are a lot of really good people on the street due to no fault of their own.
You really can't make that generalization. It varies tremendously from company to company, and even within a company depending on the department or the impetus for the layoffs. Among the considerations I've seen used:
- Performance - as discussed
- Seniority - last in, first out, no exceptions
- Salary - getting rid of higher salaries saves more money ... or so the theory goes
- Seniority (related to salary) - first in, first out. My son was laid off from HP/EDS (slime alert) last year because when the economy soured, they decided they could lower their pay scales. They laid off the people hired at the old scale and brought in new people at the lower scale. (The bright side is he found a much better job where he was paid to help people rather than screw them -- at an insurance company, believe it or not.)
- Business changes - we no longer do xyz, so we're laying off the xyz department
- Technology changes - we no longer need xyz skill set, so we're laying off our xyz people
- Projects - project canceled, everyone assigned is gone
- Source of funding - Similar to projects, some positions are funded through specific initiatives or grants. When I worked in government, I had an employee laid off because a bureaucrat in the governor's office didn't get around to signing the form accepting a grant renewal.
- Reorganizations - often result in dropping positions and even departments
- Rank or title - we need to eliminate x% of our AVPs
- Age - usually masked as one of the above, unless it's an early retirement offer
- Geography - closing the Titusville office
- Schedule - eliminating the third shift
- Work Location - I saw a company lay off everyone who worked from a home office as part of a downsizing effort. Easier for execs because they didn't have to face the employees.
- Politics - never underestimate the incompetence of corporate politics
In short, although I think the OP is accurate, it mostly demonstrates how lazy and inept many HR departments are. There are a lot of really good people on the street due to no fault of their own.
"HP had an exceptional quarter with strong performance across every region," said Mark Hurd, HP chairman and chief executive officer. "We've built the best portfolio in the industry, and our customers are responding. We're winning in the marketplace, investing for the future and confident in the enormous opportunity that lies ahead."
"HP drove double-digit revenue growth and improving profits, contributing to our twentieth consecutive quarter of year-over-year operating margin expansion," said Cathie Lesjak, HP executive vice president and chief financial officer. "With the improving demand environment, we are accelerating investments for growth while raising our full-year outlook."
But anyone who thinks that all unemployed people deserve it haven't been around the block enough times.
There's some logic to it on the whole, even if it doesn't make any sense in terms of individual candidates.
That's my problem with it "on the whole". You seem to think it's overall a fair heuristic. Especially in a down economy, I don't think this is true. Do I think they should be allowed to do that? Sure, it's a free market. But ultimately I think if you experience the labor market long enough you wouldn't be so sympathetic. (E.g, let's not forget a lot of companies will fire highly paid yet better workers first. IMO you're naive if you think most survivors are simply the better workers.)
Using any kind of systematic seniority based approach makes no sense whatsoever, that must be some sort of union logic (ie, dumb idea).