Looking for work? Unemployed need not apply (receive, money, UI)

[Tampaite]

CNN Link: click here

By Chris Isidore, senior writerJune 16, 2010: 4:25 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- 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.

I was disappointed reading this article.

Is this contributing to the ever growing unemployment and under-employment in the U.S?

Why would someone ever say NO to a talented employee if he/she is out of work?

[TN_Someday]

Originally Posted by Tampaite

CNN Link: click here

I was disappointed reading this article.

Is this contributing to the ever growing unemployment and under-employment in the U.S?

Why would someone ever say NO to a talented employee if he/she is out of work?

I won't consider anyone out of work for 6 months or more. Why? Because I work in a highly technical environment, and I don't have 4 weeks for someone to relearn their skills.

And no, obviously refusing to hire the unemployed doesn't create more unemployed, after all, they were unemployed before not being allowed to post for a certain job. Perhaps it affects underemployment a little bit though.

I personally am in favor of this, it saves me tons of time going through resumes of people who haven't worked for 2 years and will essentially require an entire retraining. I won't do that in any economy, so it just makes sense to reject them right away.

We don't say it explicitly, but on my company's website we have a drop down list that asks when the last time you were employed was, and if the user selects anything over 6 months, they receive an automatic rejection letter. Some people try and reapply, so we just block their IPs, because believe it or not, some will apply from the same job over and over again...

[bobtn]

It makes perfect sense, even simple things such as being used to arriving on time, every day, after several years out of work, may not be executed well. Let alone skill sets eroding.

If they at least volunteered during that time, or taken new courses, gotten more training, that does speak better of them.

Too many 99ers, quite frankly (and I know some) frittered away the 1st year or more before even putting any effort in. Do not mention DOL rules on applications, many apply where they are sure they won't be hired to get the #s in, and the odds of an ui audit with so many out of work are no better than hitting Powerball.

[Hopes]

TN_Someday & bbtn,

Can you see that your HR mindset is actually contributing to longer periods of unemployment for people?

If HR departments won't consider unemployed applicants, the unemployed applicants will stay unemployed much, much longer.

You're assuming everyone is sitting on their rears. The economy is really bad and Japan's earthquake is going to make it even worse than it is now.

Eventually, the unemployment rates are going to drop and you'll be desperate for employees.

When that happens, you'll hire anyone who has been out of work for any length of time.

It's silly to impose this refusal to hire people who are unemployed. It's downright illogical except for extremely high tech companies.

For low high tech companies, employers need to realize that Microsoft Office isn't high tech.

With everyone owning PCs at home, it's not like most people lose those basic computer skills.

[bobtn]

The world is much higher tech in all endeavors all the time, Hopes. Due to the higher cost of benefits (mostly Health Care), most corps now have eliminated several layers between entry level and top mgmt, which pushes ever more complex, technical responsibilities to lower level employees. This increases the premium for up-to-the-moment skill sets.

Playing on ones PC is not the same thing. And if all one knows is Microsoft Office-even in low unemployment times, good luck getting a job more than $1/hour above the retail rate.

Its not up to corps to be the social welfare agents of a nation, and truth be told, most people are far better off taking a job at 2/3 their old pay within 1 year, as opposed to playing out the 99 week clock. Doing the latter will result in far deeper haircuts, for life.

[Hopes]

Microsoft Office was just an example.

When I returned to work recently after being a SAHM for seven years, my computer skills were far superior to my new coworkers.

Try TESTING people's skills instead of assuming they don't have skills.

You'd be amazed at what people can teach themselves. Back in the 80s, when computers were rather new and few people knew how to use them, I taught myself everything and I was (and still am) at the top of my game. People intervewing me would ask, "how do you know all of these programs (they took up the entire second page of my resume). They were shocked to learn I taught myself. Heck, I even taught myself system security for the mainframe at Alcoa via the damn huge binder manuals in no time flat.

I don't expect corporations to be social welfare. I've always been a hiring manager with a different mindset.

The labor force is vital to corporate America. It's in our own best interest to keep the force current by hiring people.

We're not talking about 99ers. TN_Someday won't look at people who have been unemployed for 6 months.

Your way of doing things is going to come back to bite you when the unemployment rates drop. Your conceptual skills are lacking.

You're only being reactive to current hiring environments, not proactive for the future good of your companies and corporate America as a whole.

[bobtn]

Most of our interviiews focus on things you have done in the short-term (last 6-12 months of employment), and how the skill sets you have acquired (real world corp exp) would be an asset to us. It gets far beyond basic computer skills or software knowledge, but how you very recently used them, and your other skill sets, to be an asset to your corp, in a manner we feel will be an asset to ours.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Most of our interviiews focus on things you have done in the short-term (last 6-12 months of employment), and how the skill sets you have acquired (real world corp exp) would be an asset to us.

Only real world corporate experience, huh?

Originally Posted by bobtn

If they at least volunteered during that time, or taken new courses, gotten more training, that does speak better of them.

Talk in circles much?



And you've never, ever hired a college graduate?

[bobtn]

Volunteering and acquiring training show initiative, and separates candidates from the pack of unemployed.

Too many look at the 1st half of ui (no matter its length) as paid vacation, especially with a 65% COBRA subsidy for over 1 year (thru 5/31/10 layoffs) , further cushioning the blow.

We do hire college grads, but only for a small fraction of our US headcount. We favor those who did internships, paid or unpaid.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by bobtn

The world is much higher tech in all endeavors all the time, Hopes. Due to the higher cost of benefits (mostly Health Care), most corps now have eliminated several layers between entry level and top mgmt, which pushes ever more complex, technical responsibilities to lower level employees. This increases the premium for up-to-the-moment skill sets.

Playing on ones PC is not the same thing. And if all one knows is Microsoft Office-even in low unemployment times, good luck getting a job more than $1/hour above the retail rate.

Its not up to corps to be the social welfare agents of a nation, and truth be told, most people are far better off taking a job at 2/3 their old pay within 1 year, as opposed to playing out the 99 week clock. Doing the latter will result in far deeper haircuts, for life.

Unemployment is far below 2/3 of a person's income so I doubt that folks would deliberately turn down a job that pays more than unemployment insurance.