"Discrimination Against the Unemployed"

Robert In Ohio

HR Manager/Director

AH HA, that's why you write so well. You just have a knack for writing. :)

MJL

Others might opine that it is knack for creating that which the bull leaves in piles

:-o)

that was funny too :)

I do wonder, Robert, though if more and more employers are looking nowadays to hire those that are willing to take a lower salary than that which would be considered the norm for that type of job. It seems to me that, with so many unemployed and shoulder-rubbing for what jobs there are, that employers no longer need to wage-compete in the majority of cases any longer. Also goes for health care benefits and packages, holidays etc. that, nowadays, employers might seriously be looking to cut.

Teresa

The companies that I do work for lately are all employers of choice in their areas (good wages, flexible scheduling and good benefits) and in the area of skilled tradesmen (machinists, CCM, logistics management, safety, quality, engineering, etc) there is still a dearth of credentialed and qualified applicants for many jobs and wage competition still occurs for some skills that are demand.

It has been my experience of in the last 3 to 5 years that the employers I work with are asking their employees to help with the cost burden of the good benefits package, rather than cutting benefits. Most of the companies are 75/25 to 65/35 (employer/employee) cost sharing on benefit premiums and costs, which is a pretty good deal in my opinion.

All applicants, who meet job requirements, should be given the opportunity to compete for an open position, but current and past employment as well as future upward mobility will always be a factor (among many) in the final hiring decision.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well, that is good to hear. At least, for now, certain skills which remain in demand, do have an edge in a skill-shortage market. Non-skilled labour perhaps now in some States, however, are under threat with impending Labour Reform legislation, the sum of which is still being debated. Those reforms could, possibly, include a drop in the minimum wage and longer working hours as part of an overhaul to assist businesses and create more incentives to hire extra workers. I do see a sea-change, across the board, as the US government looks at how existing labour laws are impacting growing unemployment figures, and what will be needed to shrink those figures. However, yes - there will always be companies and corporations that do apply, as best they can, a relatively fair employment package which, today, would seem very generous of the kind that you post. The push-back of those kind of packages will happen, however, if a company's profits begin nose-diving due to the economic and growth climate. Premium employers, such as you describe, are not immune to those threats.

Also, I agree that, yes, all applicants should be given equal opportunity to compete for any open positions. However, how "equal" this remains in the future, will depend on the integrity of the companies involved. Do we not see a creeping tendency towards incestuous practices in hiring procedures, and that the equalisation process is also becoming stacked against some sections of the unemployed? There are some perceptions creeping in amongst the unemployed citizens which seems to paint some picture that past employment history may take the secondary position against who one knows in that company.

I do hope that the integrity which you display personally, and promote as fair and equal, is not an anomaly in the hiring playground. Much credit to you, Robert.

Teresa

Thanks for those kind words

Once company at a time doing the right thing and it will someday become the norm and hopefully not too far in the future.

Nail on the head.

Often, patterns of discrimination are identified through statistical analysis of data. If someone were to file a complaint and an investigation ensued, records could be examined and analyzed. And if the complainant's application or name wasn't in the records, that would most certainly be a clue.

don't computer applications discriminate against people who don't know how to use computers?

No more than paper application forms discriminate against people who are illiterate.

...long-term unemployment is commonplace even for the qualified and hard-working.

False on its face....By definition, hard-working folks will figure out some sort of gainful employment...long before being out of work for a year (absent medical or other exceptional circumstances). That is why employers look for those who are already employed....employers want someone who is self motivated and knows how to overcome obstacles.

By definition, hard-working folks will figure out some sort of gainful employment...long before being out of work for a year (absent medical or other exceptional circumstances).

That depends on your area. In some places, you may be able to find a job near your field but outside of it. Other places, you might just be flipping burgers. In some areas of the country, believe it or not, no one is hiring, not even the burger joints. In those areas, it's literally impossible to find a job without moving, and some people simply don't have the resources or ability to move.

Being "hard-working" doesn't mean you can magically create employment where there is none. It means that when you're put to a task, you put your all into it. For the unemployed, that task is finding a job. If someone works 10 hours a day, 7 days per week on that task and finds nothing, I don't think you have much place to tell them they're lazy or unmotivated.

Steve,

Having done my share of interviews...on both sides of the desk...I see employers looking for ways to measure those attributes that are sometimes..."immeasurable." Attitude & motivation are two of those that are difficult to measure via a resume....If I am doing the interview, I want to know a prospect is employed...even outside his field....That is easier for me to assess than a two year diligent but fruitless search for a job in his field. Employers know it's a tough job market right now. They want to know how a potential employee is handling it. Check out the story of "The Blue Vase."

Regards,

Mike

If I am doing the interview, I want to know a prospect is employed...even outside his field....That is easier for me to assess than a two year diligent but fruitless search for a job in his field.

Except, as I noted, someone could expand their net to include jobs outside their field, and still pull up nothing. Dismissing someone because they haven't found a job in an economy that prevents people from finding jobs simply doesn't make sense.

arkpdx

I am sure that is sometimes the case.

I was in HR for a long time and we looked at it differently when recruiting for open positions; an applicant for a position that was currently employed, in our industry or a related one, always had special appeal because they were looking to join our company and not simply looking for a job. Over the years, we found that many of these hires turned out to be top performers in the organization

Robert

I think that is true, When I was unemployed I had a lot of interviews, they weren't empressed that I worked at temp positions to keep my skill up. I didn't think I'd ever find work.

I wasn't looking for a job, I wanted to have a career, untill I would retire.

Finally I found one in insurance billing due to my certfication in medicare.

and the ones sitting back on unemployment..did not..there are some exceptions..have had some experience in the field as well..working with HR

I can understand why an employer would rather hire someone already working, but think of the people who do qualify and unemployment is the deterrent, it's a shame really.

the history of a person also counts as well MJL..there are some considerations...in one hand you have a seasoned person..in another you have one that qualifies but has no on the job history...either way there are still paticulars involved..like consistancy in maintaining a job and getting laid off is also an exception..its crazy..but what I find today is people keeping there job, just showing up

Well , I love the job I have, fighting with insurance companies. It great, figuring out why a claim was denied.

I really do enjoy this, although I wasn't sure I wanted back in the medical field but this is truely my talent.

nothing wrong with that sounds like a good job..I am sure it has its challenges at times like everything else..

yep, it can be a challenge, but I enjoy it. Great hours, nice pay.

and that's what truly matters all the way around.

I suppose we'll have to take your anecdotal evidence and weigh it against the millions of people who would gladly or already have accepted positions far below their usual income or prestige level, grateful for any kind of income in a down economy.

The biggest thing I see with people who are out of work for a long time is an innate unwillingness to "keep up".

Yes - I know how judgmental this sounds. But I've seen it over and over. I'm in IT and any time I see someone buying books, trying out new things, taking classes, and trying to learn on the job, that person will never ever be out of work. But someone unwilling to do that - they get laid off and they don't have current skills and surprisingly, has no real interest in keeping up even after that.

I'd say this is true in any managerial or technical field. Even if unemployment goes over 20%, those who aggressively keep up will still be working.

I'd also have to side somewhat with Recruitdad1992 here - the company I contract at has a number of openings that I'll admit don't pay high but they have medical and better than minimum wage. There are some skills you need, but I'd say realistically you could train for that in a few months or less. And they can't fill them - often for the reasons cited.

I don't believe its so much that people do not want to work, rather that people would like to have the opportunity to become meaningful, productive members of the economic society.

It's too late for that. Now we must learn the skills, get off our butts and get back to work for the sake of the next generation of American workers, it's too late for this generation. We've taken what was given us by the previous generation, paid for with sweat, and shipped it all over the world because we thought we could be the worlds "middle manager"........it didn't work.

Get back to work!

@Recruit: Kind of, sort of, but, not exactly.

Many, if not most, US Manufacturers out sourced soley to increase their profits by ten to a thousand fold. In addition to being in better positions to "safely park" their profits away from the American Economy.

The competition excuse is not only a fraud, it is a lie.

I agree in part in what you say in your first paragraph, Barry - I think we get it. However, competition is not a lie - the US and Europe cannot compete with cheap labour - not unless we can create a cheap labour force of our own, and bring back those jobs and factories. What are the chances of doing that? Reformation of Labour Laws? Cutting back on minimum wage, health insurance etc? Not much chance of skilled/non-skilled workers going for that one, IMO.

Recruitdad is right also on the issue of re-training. The education system needs to be overhauled and business needs to be involved - it needs to put their money into the training, and the education needs to be better geared towards current business needs, so that the jobs are out there ready to be filled. Every State has their own employment needs. Look around your State - what kind of jobs have shortages? If your kids are going to College/Uni - they need the right qualifications to fill what jobs exist in their State, surely.

@Teresa: Do not misunderstand me, and I do not disagree with Recruitdad.

However, US economic problems were not created by competition, rather, they were fostered through greed and fraud. To cut back on American citizens wages without doing the same to the so called "captains of industry and finance" will only exacerbate the economy.

European problems are not through their trade policies. Their problems are rooted in bad debt they acquired through fraudulent US banking and market investment vehicles.

To cut back on American citizens wages without doing the same to the so called "captains of industry and finance" will only exacerbate the economy.

US economic problems were not created by competition

But it is the growth of the economy which will be threatened by the lack of it. And we will have a lack of it, will we not, if our markets cannot compete with cheap labour. As more manufacturing and factories close, and consumers look more and more at cheaper-end products because that is what is affordable, how can the US and Europe best compete? To cut back on citizens' wages and packages may, seemingly, be one way. Worrying.

The reason why the wages of the "captains" will not be cut is exactly that which you state. Greed. There is no belief, in my book anyway, that a fair and equal system will be applied. It will remain the same as in the past. A Government can forcibly apply it through the back door of increased taxation on those captains. Hopefully, putting that money into re-training programs for the unemployed, thereby decreasing the benefits bill, and collecting ultimately more in taxes and social insurance contributions in the longer term.

And, yes, our economies are now having to fund the bad debt which was caused as you state - that cannot be undone. The only way a country can service those debts is to create a higher GDP... and we cannot do that without growth and a competitive edge. How are our economies going to get that Edge?... worryingly, through cheaper labour. Tell me what I am missing?

Cheap Labor is an excuse for the "upper tiers" to shirk patriotism and responsibility for their country.

The competition excuse is a lie.

US economy's strength is in its ability to have a strong, thriving, growing, prosperous, Middle Class. Without that, you have the only the "have mores" and -----------everybody else at each others throats. That is Oligarchy.

US economy's strength is in its ability to have a strong, thriving, growing, prosperous, Middle Class

And how will that be maintained? From where will it grow? How will that be funded?

Everything was doing just fine until deregulation and the introduction of Supply Side Economics.

It maintains itself.

It grows through innovation and new market needs.

It funds itself through an expanding tax base.

We were all doing fine until the Banks created our economic downfalls - things have changed. Do we not have bad debt to service that has grown out of all proportion to GDP today? Sure, we can be innovative and create new market needs - but if it is not competitive in terms of pricing, then the end products of whatever we produce, in the US and Europe, will have a short market. If you look at what China and India can produce and manufacture - they will undercut our products on price every time, and their factories will compete consistently in attempting to take as much of our manufacturing into their borders simply by keeping labour cheap. That is global competition, and the West does not have the edge.

Bmav

When I was not working I looked at and applied to every job I could find. I had the added disadvantage of being over 50 also. There were some employers out there though that IMO were and are just down right insulting. I don't know how many that I seen that wanted years of expirience every certificate in the world and still wanted to pay less than what was paid twenty years ago to a newbie with no expirience.

I can understand that for the newly unemployed it is hard to accept a position that pays half of what you were making for the same work and requiring the same level of expertise. Too many employers were/ are slapping the faces if those who have the skills they want.

There were some employers out there though that IMO were and are just down right insulting. I don't know how many that I seen that wanted years of expirience every certificate in the world and still wanted to pay less than what was paid twenty years ago to a newbie with no expirience.

And my concern is that this may well be the new trend of the future. It is all in the name of trying to compete with overseas cheap labour, is it not?

However, Arkpdx - could you not use that unemployment time to look around and see if you could train up into something through whatever funded programs could be around to give yourself an edge. Employers don't like to hear about nothing. Look around at what you could do to add to your CV - even voluntary work is better than nothing. Apologies if I am making an assumption that you are not currently doing any of this anyway.

Teresa

I took every ten job that was offered regardless of the wage paid. I looked into further training but it was hard to justify going thousands further into debt when iwas having difficulty as it was just putting food on the table plus the added problem of not being able to even get the unemployment check while going to school because you weren't available to go to work. I did what I could to keep my skills up but being over 50 makes getting work harder since many companies would rather have a younger new employee..

Getting unemployment checks and the government then not offering incentives for training programs alongside that does not seem, to me, very productive in getting the long term employed back into work. That would, seemingly, just keep them unemployed and on checks longer? Guess I have just got to try and make some sense out of that one!

By taking any job, regardless of wage paid, as you state, is the only option then. Obviously, not a good situation to find yourself in but, worryingly, this might become more and more the plight of the citizens. Even if the job does not pay "a living wage". Cheaper and cheaper labour is, stealthly, creeping in. Soon we will be able to compete with India and China in manufacturing our own products as cheap as them!!

Akwaldgeist

Republicans business and corporations are not hiring they want hurt the economy for the Americans to get mad as hell and make President Obama a one term president.

http://www.redstate.com/skipmaclure/2011/11/27/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-not-hiring-until-obama-is-gone%E2%80%9D/.

WACO, Ga. -- A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

Republicans business and corporations are not hiring they want hurt the economy for the Americans to get mad as hell and make President Obama a one term president.

Then they are not doing a good job because most of them are hiring and the economy is improving (and would be regardless of the president). It's not hard to get a job.

I can't even remotely envision a business or company accelerating or reducing hiring for political reasons.

Just remember Idiocracy (I like money). Hiring is based on one thing. Making money.