Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2012, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,641 posts, read 67,264,742 times
Reputation: 21179

Advertisements

How strange that some employers would be that way?

Quote:
Reporting from Sacramento — Even though the labor market is improving, thousands of unemployed Californians are caught in a bind: Some employers only want to hire them if they already have a job.

Some companies state that plainly in employment ads. Others are more discreet, screening out jobless workers during the initial application process. Discrimination? Perhaps. But so far it's legal...

A survey of online job postings found 125 ads from named companies that required applicants to be employed.

"This perverse catch-22 is deepening our unemployment crisis by arbitrarily foreclosing job opportunities to many who are otherwise qualified for them," the study said...

Bill would prohibit discrimination against unemployed in hiring - Los Angeles Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2012, 10:58 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 10,854,602 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
How strange that some employers would be that way?
Why? Do you actually entertain thoughts that employers act altruistically in the interests of mankind or something? I enjoy your optimism always, Montclair -- but really!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,063,711 times
Reputation: 9270
I think it is rather bizarre for a company to specifically state in a job posting that they only want to consider people currently employed. The only reason I can think of for doing that is to reduce the number of resumes or applications they get. Maybe there are so many unemployed people that every job posting swamps HR with applications from people clearly not qualified?

So if they pass a law preventing this I doubt actual hiring is changed at all. If a company doesn't want to hire long term unemployed people they WILL get screened out during the filtering process.

The law will not change unemployment because if company A hires employed worker X, then worker X's former employer now has an opening, and the number of job postings remains the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Police State
1,472 posts, read 2,402,964 times
Reputation: 1232
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
I think it is rather bizarre for a company to specifically state in a job posting that they only want to consider people currently employed. The only reason I can think of for doing that is to reduce the number of resumes or applications they get. Maybe there are so many unemployed people that every job posting swamps HR with applications from people clearly not qualified?

So if they pass a law preventing this I doubt actual hiring is changed at all. If a company doesn't want to hire long term unemployed people they WILL get screened out during the filtering process.

The law will not change unemployment because if company A hires employed worker X, then worker X's former employer now has an opening, and the number of job postings remains the same.
This. There are many things employers aren't supposed to do. There are things you can't say about an ex-employee when checking references for example, but well all know damn well that such blackballing happens all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 09:00 AM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,320,281 times
Reputation: 11039
As someone who has done a fair share of hiring (and actually cares a lot about process excellence in this regard), my finding has been that most other hiring managers have really, really poor skills in this area, and do everything they can to minimize the amount of time spent on it. It is what it is ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: San Jose
68 posts, read 166,732 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Why? Do you actually entertain thoughts that employers act altruistically in the interests of mankind or something? I enjoy your optimism always, Montclair -- but really!
But they are THE "job creators"! The noble, admirable movers and shakers that drive our economy and society in general! If we could only lower their tax burden, I'm sure they'll go on a hiring frenzy.

-- ilya
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:07 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,568,173 times
Reputation: 23293
Another misconceived idiotic bill.

If an employer is stupid enough not hire the right person for the job let them suffer the consequences. More social tinkering from the nanny state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:22 AM
 
7,150 posts, read 10,854,602 times
Reputation: 3806
I assume all see the theory behind the employer discrimination -- yet it hasn't been spelled out here yet: the tacit assumption is that most of the folks who have been able to remain employed are the best at what they do -- while the marginal were laid off. Therefore: the best new employees can be cherry-picked from the ranks of the continually employed.

Obviously many highly qualified people lost their jobs, not just the marginal ... but this discrimination of looking within the ranks of the continuously employed narrows the field to only the better choices.

Okay. Fine. It's not nice. And a lot of good workers are out in the wind. And that's business. And our culture worships business over humanistic altruism. Surprise surprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,116 posts, read 46,724,808 times
Reputation: 33953
It should be retitled:

Bill would attempt to prohibit discrimination against unemployed in hiring, even though that is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,063,711 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
I assume all see the theory behind the employer discrimination -- yet it hasn't been spelled out here yet: the tacit assumption is that most of the folks who have been able to remain employed are the best at what they do -- while the marginal were laid off. Therefore: the best new employees can be cherry-picked from the ranks of the continually employed.

Obviously many highly qualified people lost their jobs, not just the marginal ... but this discrimination of looking within the ranks of the continuously employed narrows the field to only the better choices.

Okay. Fine. It's not nice. And a lot of good workers are out in the wind. And that's business. And our culture worships business over humanistic altruism. Surprise surprise.
At a purely "hire the best candidate available" basis, an employer should welcome QUALIFIED applicants whether currently employed or not. I'm sure there are some fantastic people currently unemployed who could do many jobs. It could also be true that some unemployed people refuse to consider jobs "beneath" them, but that's a different topic.

I don't understand how you can openly restrict your applicant pool to currently employed anyway. That isn't a job related qualification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top