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.
From a business perspective at this point in time I think it's a good decision since there is such a large pool of under employed and those in positions that took any job just to get a job. That is who they are really targeting because it would be easy to get them to take the job offer.
By disqualifying people that are currently unemployed while you're going to disqualify a lot of good potential employees you're also going to weed out a lot of bad ones that are just wasting your time.
In a sense all they are doing is kicking the issue of weeding through a lot of applicants down the road to some other company. Callous or not it's good business decision.
I disagree. Disqualifying good potential employees doesn't make weeding out the obviously unqualified worth it. I've done hiring myself, and while the vast majority of applicants were quite obviously unqualified or ready for the job, it's easy to spot, not all that time consuming, and the people we got were good fits that we might not have gotten under your policy.
Again a company is going to keep their most productive and cost effective employees, that's just the way it is. That's not going to apply to everyone, some will fall through the cracks whether they are good employees or bad but overall that is what is going to happen.
If you don't think that is the case could you explain why a company would want to get rid of the better employees? See how ridiculous your argument is beginning to sound.
Only a nitwit or poorly managed company is going to keep the undesirable employees around if they have to make layoffs.
Again, you don't allow for entire departments being outsourced (a very prevalent practice in IT, leaving entire teams of highly skilled, excellent employees without work); companies shutting down and all the employees being out of work; departments being merged with existing departments and, where two otherwise good managers exist, one of them has to go, usually the one whose department got swallowed up.
There are myriad reasons that someone who is a potentially outstanding employee might get caught up in a layoff or simply lose their job. And not everyone who currently has a job is necessarily a good potential employee. They could, in fact, be one of the least productive people in their current company, but simply haven't been let go (yet).
To insist that any of those scenarios is ridiculous is, well, ridiculous.
And I speak from a position of knowledge in this field. I spent more than a dozen years in the personnel placement industry, working with a wide variety of business clientele and probably hundreds of prospective employees. You, on the other hand, run you own company and think this makes you some kind of expert in the employment industry. It doesn't. It makes your stories nothing more than anecdotal and speculative, not informed.
To exclude people who are currently unemployed is, to put it bluntly, bad business. Those who are unemployed are hungry for work and are ready and available for immediate employment. They don't have to give several weeks' notice to their current employer. If they possess the skills, background and education required to do the job, an employer would be foolish not to consider them just because they aren't working at the moment. You may have two identically qualified candidates, one of whom is currently unemployed, but who was at their previous position for 15 years, which shows loyalty on their part, and one of whom is "job hopping" from someplace they've been for 6 months. Yeah, that's a good candidate to bet on. Spend weeks or months training them and they're much more likely to jump ship the minute a better offer comes along.
It is an idiotic, uneducated and shortsighted policy.
There are myriad reasons that someone who is a potentially outstanding employee might get caught up in a layoff or simply lose their job.
Correct as I have stipulated numerous times already. That still doesn't change the fact that overall when a company needs to lay off employees the first people that will get the axe are those that are unproductive or very expensive to keep.
I'll ask you again if a company needs to layoff employees like many of them did starting in 2007 would they not try and keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones? This is not rocket science, it's common sense.
Quote:
To exclude people who are currently unemployed is, to put it bluntly, bad business
Apparently people that are making a hell of lot more money that either of us think it is. I'd have to agree with their assessment.
Quote:
Spend weeks or months training them and they're much more likely to jump ship the minute a better offer comes along.
As an employee you are in sense your own businessman, your customer is your employer. Like any businesman you'd be foolish not take advantage of advancement. This is how things are supposed to work, good employees will get the better job offers and poor ones get left in same old jobs forever.... If the employee is that good it would be wise to offer them better options if they want leave. How do you expect people to advance in the work place? Unions don't work but the merit system certainly does.
Last edited by thecoalman; 02-21-2011 at 09:10 PM..
Correct as I have stipulated numerous times already. That still doesn't change the fact that overall when a company needs to lay off employees the first people that will get the axe are those that are unproductive or very expensive to keep.
It's amazing. You claim to stipulate to the scenarios I present, then proceed to contradict them anyway.
I'm going to say this one last time and then I'm done with you.
Often companies lay off very good employees for a variety of reasons, none of which has to do with skill or performance. And they do this even more often in recessionary times like we've experienced over the past 3 years, when entire companies just plain close, departments merge, or entire departments are outsourced.
Quote:
I'll ask you again if a company needs to layoff employees like many of them did starting in 2007 would they not try and keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones? This is not rocket science, it's common sense.
No, it's idiotic sense, as it's a rare occurrence for that to happen when a company has mass layoffs or shuts down entire departments or goes out of business. Frequently, good employees get shuffled out with mediocre and bad ones.
The times when bad employees are let go are generally during the good economic times, when companies merely practice discretionary termination as opposed to mass terminations having nothing to do with performance but economics.
Apparently, this is rocket science for you.
Quote:
As an employee you are in sense your own businessman, your customer is your employer. Like any businesman you'd be foolish not take advantage of advancement. This is how things are supposed to work, good employees will get the better job offers and poor ones get left in same old jobs forever.... If the employee is that good it would be wise to offer them better options if they want leave. How do you expect people to advance in the work place? Unions don't work but the merit system certainly does.
Incredible. You truly have no clue what you're talking about. No. Clue. And you refuse to learn from someone who has extensive experience in the field of employment recruitment.
Go on living in your dream world where only bad employees get the axe, so the entirety of the unemployed can be dismissed as unworthy of being hired. It's utterly without merit, but if it makes you feel better or superior or whatever, who am I to deny you your fantasy?
Should the Unemployed be able to file a lawsuit against employers who refuse to hire the unemployed ?
I realize there is no ( law) against it but honestly what are your opinions regarding this current practice of employers refusing to hire the unemployed simply because they ARE unemployed ?
From The People Place Job Recruiting : "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."
Sony Erricson : Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL."
Restaurant in Edgewater, NJ " Must be currently employed "
.
A company's choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.
Honestly, the only way that would happen would be if the unemployed that are applying for work were highly undesirable as potential employees.
If a business needed good people, why would they ignore great candidates. IMO they haven't, they are spotting the losers and are just not going to hire them over better candidates IMO.
I agree with you that when layoffs are necessary, companies in general are going to try to layoff their less productive employees. But even you concede that's not always the case. Sometimes a company will simply outsource an entire function of the company. Other times they'll cease production on an entire line of products. Other times, there are simply personality conflicts that don't actually weigh on whether somebody would be a good employee.
I understand the point you are trying to make. Any company is going to do their best not to get rid of their best employees when making layoffs. That's simply good business. But that doesn't always happen. Sometimes people fall through cracks, or a million other things could happen.
The point is that it's a bad policy to refuse to even consider somebody currently unemployed for a job. There's nothing preventing them from doing so, but closing the door on them altogether makes you seem extremely callous, and prevents you from considering otherwise well qualified applicants.
If there is a union likely it will be last hired 'frist layed off as in most contracts..
It's amazing. You claim to stipulate to the scenarios I present, then proceed to contradict them anyway.
I have not stipulated to your scenarios nor have I contradicted myself. I don't know what your issue is here but you've claimed many things about me that are not even close to what I have posted. For example where is it you get this idea:
Quote:
Once again the right proves they don't give a damn about workers.
Apparently your hatred for anyone conservative has driven you to make up stuff?
Again a company is going to keep their most productive and cost effective employees, that's just the way it is. That's not going to apply to everyone, some will fall through the cracks whether they are good employees or bad but overall that is what is going to happen.
If you don't think that is the case could you explain why a company would want to get rid of the better employees? See how ridiculous your argument is beginning to sound.
Only a nitwit or poorly managed company is going to keep the undesirable employees around if they have to make layoffs.
Utter nonsense: In my field most architecture firms are laying off their experienced architects, retaining their technicians and not hiring graduates (part 1 and 2.) This is simply because technicians are cheaper than architects, though they simply do not have the knowledge and design skills an experienced architect does. Even the average part 2 graduate is more talented/skilled than a technician.
Utter nonsense: In my field most architecture firms are laying off their experienced architects, retaining their technicians and not hiring graduates (part 1 and 2.) This is simply because technicians are cheaper than architects, though they simply do not have the knowledge and design skills an experienced architect does. Even the average part 2 graduate is more talented/skilled than a technician.
Apparently the cheaper less knowledgable technicians are more cost effective. If not then that's the company's bad call and its loss.
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.
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.
