Jobless Need Not Apply

[JME2]

From Yahoo:

In 2008, Michelle, a 53-year-old Illinois resident with 19 years experience in information technology, became another casualty of the Great Recession. More than a year later, after a long and fruitless job search, she finally heard from a headhunter who thought she sounded like a great fit for a post he was looking to fill.

But when Michelle told him how long she had been out of work, the headhunter turned apologetic: His client, he said, wouldn't accept people who had been unemployed for more than six months. Michelle would go on to stay jobless for so long that she ultimately exhausted all her unemployment benefits, and, for the first time in her life, was forced to apply for food stamps and welfare.

Michelle's tale was recounted at a recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) meeting devoted to the issue of hiring discrimination against the unemployed. As the commission found, Michelle's experience is far from unique. No one officially tracks how many job openings explicitly bar the unemployed, but several news reports since last summer have uncovered numerous online job postings that require candidates be employed during the application process. One such listing was posted by the cellphone giant Sony Ericsson--a move the company later called a "mistake."

Job-placement professionals say that over the last year, more and more employers have made it clear they won't consider job candidates who aren't working. "A lot of our recruiters have had clients who have come across this," Matt Deutsch of TopEchelon.com, which brings recruiters together to collaborate in finding jobs for candidates, told The Lookout, calling the practice "unfortunate."

With the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer at a whopping 6.2 million, and with 4.7 unemployed workers for every job opening, advocates for the jobless say this growing form of hiring discrimination creates another hurdle for the increasingly desperate ranks of the unemployed. "At a moment when we all should be doing whatever we can to open up job opportunities to the unemployed, it is profoundly disturbing that the trend of deliberately excluding the jobless from work opportunities is on the rise," Christine Owens, who runs the National Employment Law Center, told the EEOC.

Some experts say that discrimination against the jobless, as currently practiced, may violate civil rights laws--a question the commission is now considering. In itself, such discrimination isn't illegal. (New Jersey is exploring legislation that would prohibit job ads telling the unemployed not to apply.) But it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or age. And African-Americans and older workers are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed--meaning they may be bearing the brunt of discrimination against the jobless.

The EEOC declined to say whether it's investigating specific cases of potential violations.

Some employers have said they're unwilling to hire unemployed workers because they believe that if a worker has once been let go, that's a sign that he or she is probably not a great hire. "People who are currently employed … are the kind of people you want as opposed to people who get cut," one recruiter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution in October.

And as Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke has said, when people are out of work for a long time, their skills can erode, which may understandably make them less attractive to employers.

But Deutsch said that a bias against the jobless is also a time-saving device for companies that may themselves be making do with less, thanks to the downturn. "If you've got a huge stack of submissions, and you want to get through them quickly, [you can say] 'OK, all the people who are not currently employed, forget them,' " Deutsch explained. "That's gonna cut down on your workload."

However, aside from the damage that this practice does to unemployed candidates, employers who adopt it may be shooting themselves in the foot, since they're probably screening out qualified applicants who were laid off through no fault of their own. "To think that that's going to bring you all the qualified candidates you want to see is probably not the case," Deutsch said.

You know, as much as I've bitched about my life and situation for the last 2 years, I'm glad that I have had part-time work to put on a resume and not a large gap.

[Nephtys]

I can feel this quite a bit. I was working my last job as an Engineer for a government contractor, designing electronics. With budget cuts and canceled projects, my company had to lay off entire departments practically. For the next nine months, it's been rough on anyone to find a job, particularly those who are in intermediate experience (IE, not brand new, not experienced, but in between). I get asked that question of 'explain the gap', and I'll be damned if I can find a better answer than just 'people aren't hiring'. It's pretty true too, sadly. I know others in the same position, and they don't even get any calls back after applying for months at multiple places.

[JME2]

I know others in the same position, and they don't even get any calls back after applying for months at multiple places.

And it has consequences beyond the failure to secure permanent work. People are not going to forget how they were treated by these companies and how these policies are screwing their friends and family over.

This applies to me too. The HR departments of two companies I interviewed with played games after the initial interview, going silent and refusing to return my calls. I'm keeping an eye on future listings just in case, but I've lost respect for these outfits.

[Zaune]

Fucking hell. If this is equally true on this side of the pond, or still true if and when I end up settling in the US, I might as well quit applying for jobs altogether.

[Erik von Nein]

Yeah, I'm feeling this pretty badly. I unfortunately have over a three year gap in any meaningful employment, so I'm pretty well screwed. Lots of volunteer work. Woo. Nearly half my friends are in the same boat, too. No one's finding employment easily. In addition to that fun, there's that whole "you and 3000 other people are applying for that job" thing going for it, too.

[LionElJonson]

If you keep getting rejected from job applications because you've been unemployed for too long, what's stopping you from just starting your own business and using that as your relevant thing instead? Even if the 'business' is just on paper, at least you'll have something to put on your resume.

[Erik von Nein]

Because it looks terrible? "Oh, yeah, I've got my own business doing ... things, but I need this job, instead." Meh, I don't know. I try not to attempt anything fraudulent on my applications.

[Ariphaos]

Self employment is an even bigger resume stain than unemployment, I've found.

[Broomstick]

What they mean is "you have to be drawing a paycheck from a company", not "you have to be employed" because as far as most of those we-don't-hire-the-unemployed companies are concerned self-employment is exactly the same as unemployment no matter how much money you might make as as someone self-employed.

[Lagmonster]

Don't be shocked by this news; I worked for a provincial employment aid firm when I was in university and saw hundreds of people looking for help finding a job, and even twenty years ago this practice was normal. The words "recent and relevant experience in..." have appeared on job ads since I was a kid looking for a paper route.

If you're an employer, and you need to choose between a candidate with a solid foundation but who has been unemployed for years, versus a person with an average - but still acceptable - resume who is cronically employed, you probably are going to blame the applicant, feeling there must be something wrong with them for them to be qualified to hold a job and yet unable to secure one. In some situations, that's even true - I'd wager every long-term manager has had to deal with an employee who only looks good on paper.

In any event, the problem is unsolveable except in one case, because candidates can't get around the "best fit" aspect hiring managers employ as an all-purpose tool to wedge their prejudices into the hiring process.

What is the one case where a gap becomes less of an issue? Women returning to the work force after raising children. I'm not saying they have an edge every time, but answering "I was raising a baby" to the question of "why weren't you employed the last five years" is in many fields good at overcoming prejudices against an employment gap, to the point where damn near everyone - men and women - I've interviewed with any sort of gap has made a point of addressing it without being asked and identifying some family caregiver cause they took a sabbatical for, be it care for the elderly or child raising. It may even be 100% true in each case, but job seekers aren't fools; they make a point of mentioning it because they know it makes time off sound noble and like they weren't just sitting on their thumbs.

[JME2]

I'm not surprised by this and I understand why they're doing it, even if I do think it's despicable and adding to the current quagmire.

[Stravo]

I think one reason companies have this view is that if your ex-employer could shed you and you couldn't find a job right away then why should I take the risk in hiring a person who was expendable in lieu of someone who is currently employed and thus their workplace found them indispensable? In this economy that is even more of an edge because with the pressure to down size those employees who were not let go must obviously have talent or ability superior to those let go.

I'm not advocating this I'm just seeing why an employer feels that way as opposed to "heartless business owners" stereotype. Hiring people is a risk and an expense. You can't afford to be a charity and can you really size someone up in an interview or two? You want to work the odds to make your decision as favorable as possible and one of those factors is whether you are currently employed and thus neccessary in your company's eyes. Take a bigger risk on someone who has not been able to prove themselves lately or take a risk on someone who is still working in the industry, exercising their skills and wanted by their firm.

[Big Orange]

This Anglo-American employment quagmire in the private sector seems to be partially due to companies not bothering to do their own orientation/training/apprenticeships with inexperienced potential employees in their teens and twenties. This sort of sort-sighted thinking seems to have extended to Anglo-American managers taking out bank loans instead of saving funds internally as well.

[Broomstick]

It also winds up with hiring staff chasing an ever-shrinking pool of employed-but-want-to-change-jobs pool of candidates. Thus, you have our present situation where we have (relatively speaking) massive unemployment combined with private businesses screaming they can't find suitable hires and there's a worker shortage.

Hey, I've been in the workforce for 30 years. Yes, the meme has been around. However, this time is different from the usual recession. Employers and workers have not truly accepted that yet. The playing field has shifted, few have changed their strategy, hiring practices that were fine in the 1990's are now dysfunctional and can hurt both employers and workers... and no one has figured out a better way to do things. If anything, the current trend of electronic submissions is worse than prior techniques because you can easily wind up with people "good on paper" or who learn to game the software systems screening applications but who many not be qualified for the job you're hiring them for.

At a certain point employers, at least in certain fields, are going to have to loosen up their attitudes or continue to experience a "shortage of qualified applicants". Workers are going to have consider if beating their heads against the wall past six months of unemployment is a good strategy, or if they should make serious effort to reinvent themselves.

Big Orange does have a point - companies these days DO want to hire super experience that requires absolutely no training whatsoever. It didn't used to be that way, American companies used to routinely provide training to new employees - I know this directly both from having been through such, and from helping to run such programs. Not any more - they were seen as too expensive when you could just poach someone else's workers, and now that the trained/experienced people are getting old enough to retire companies are freaking out because - OMIGOSH! - such people don't hatch out fully formed and since the training programs have all been dismantled there are no new people in the pipelines.

I wish I had a good answer - I've been struggling with this for several years myself after all - but I don't.

[JME2]

Big Orange does have a point - companies these days DO want to hire super experience that requires absolutely no training whatsoever. It didn't used to be that way, American companies used to routinely provide training to new employees - I know this directly both from having been through such, and from helping to run such programs. Not any more - they were seen as too expensive when you could just poach someone else's workers, and now that the trained/experienced people are getting old enough to retire companies are freaking out because - OMIGOSH! - such people don't hatch out fully formed and since the training programs have all been dismantled there are no new people in the pipelines.

How American of them; they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I know, I know -- it sucks big time. I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

[Ariphaos]

What they mean is "you have to be drawing a paycheck from a company", not "you have to be employed" because as far as most of those we-don't-hire-the-unemployed companies are concerned self-employment is exactly the same as unemployment no matter how much money you might make as as someone self-employed.

It's more like, nothing says "I am capable of taking my ball and going my own way." like four years of self employment.

[Simon_Jester]

I think one reason companies have this view is that if your ex-employer could shed you and you couldn't find a job right away then why should I take the risk in hiring a person who was expendable in lieu of someone who is currently employed and thus their workplace found them indispensable? In this economy that is even more of an edge because with the pressure to down size those employees who were not let go must obviously have talent or ability superior to those let go.

The problem is that this is bluntly stupid when applied to the past few years, with huge numbers of people being laid off for reasons that have very little to do with their performance. Sure, they might not be the best worker at the company, I'll grant that... but you're never going to hire the best worker at the company they used to work at, because said company is going to keep that worker. Even if they have to fire the rest of his department and make him work 80-hour weeks to keep up.

It's totally perverse to be keeping up this line of thinking in today's job market, where it is routine for people to have to keep up a high-intensity job search for months before they find anything.

[Jaepheth]

I avoided this problem by using a part-time position as a line worker in a bottling plant and then later a part-time retail position as stepping stones (Oddly enough, I was paid more and had higher job satisfaction as a factory worker). Lower end jobs are a lot less picky about this sort of thing. And jobs with high turn-over rates translate into more opportunities to get a position.

Then you just have to twist those experience descriptions into something relevant to the positions you're applying for.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, the problem is that in many areas of the country even part time work in unavailable. My county used to require food stamp recipients to do volunteer work if they weren't otherwise employed past a certain point but had to end it - there weren't enough volunteer jobs available.

See, that's the thing - in a booming economy the argument that anyone unemployed longer than six months is either lazy or unsuitable for work MIGHT have some validity, but right now you can be the most experienced, educated, skilled, and motivated worker imaginably and still not be able to get work.

[Erik von Nein]

Yeah, part-time work could sustain me, except in the town I live in there's such a glut of young and unemployed college students that have far more retail experience (anything better than retail/restaurant service aren't looking for part-time help) than I do that it's unlikely they'd ever hire me. I wasn't kidding when I said me and 3,000 other people are all looking at the same job.

[JME2]

... except in the town I live in there's such a glut of young and unemployed college students that have far more retail experience (anything better than retail/restaurant service aren't looking for part-time help) than I do that it's unlikely they'd ever hire me.

This is part of the reason I moved back to San Francisco after college, thinking that the Bay Area offered plenty of job opportunities across multiple fields.

Needless to say, things didn't go according to plan.

[Starglider]

Several of my friends have been in this situation. The solution seems to be to lie through your teeth and fake references, which from what I've seen works pretty well (most companies apparently cut the budget for reference checks along with everything else). The only jobs you'd be foolish to try that on would be anything that needs a security clearance. Obviously it sucks that this is necessary, but I certainly wouldn't blame someone for this kind of dishonesty when the (potential) employer is being so overwhelmingly stupid, selfish and generally shitty.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Several of my friends have been in this situation. The solution seems to be to lie through your teeth and fake references, which from what I've seen works pretty well (most companies apparently cut the budget for reference checks along with everything else). The only jobs you'd be foolish to try that on would be anything that needs a security clearance. Obviously it sucks that this is necessary, but I certainly wouldn't blame someone for this kind of dishonesty when the (potential) employer is being so overwhelmingly stupid, selfish and generally shitty.

I think that may actually be criminal in the United States - dunno about the UK. It's absolutely a firing offense in the US.

[Starglider]

I think that may actually be criminal in the United States - dunno about the UK. It's absolutely a firing offense in the US.

It's a firing offence in the UK, but if you were unemployed to start with, what have you really lost? In practice none of the people I know who tried it was found out, or was bothered by the idea of criminal prosecution (possibly because it would be a waste of legal fees for companies to bother prosecuting destitute unemployed people). It does select against honest people entering the workforce, but sadly in many work environments being able to bullshit (to customers, management etc) is a desired skill anyway.

Being self-employed for most of my career I have avoided a lot of this crap, but of course self-employment comes with many of its own problems, which can be just as bad if not worse.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It's a firing offence in the UK, but if you were unemployed to start with, what have you really lost? In practice none of the people I know who tried it was found out, or was bothered by the idea of criminal prosecution (possibly because it would be a waste of legal fees for companies to bother prosecuting destitute unemployed people).

Well, for one thing, your former employer will almost certainly make a habit of telling any prospective future employers that you lied on your application. I admit, desperate times call for desperate measures, but criminal measures are another breed.

In the example of a criminal prosecution, to put it in your words, it wouldn't be a lawsuit brought by your old employer. They'd report your perfidious act of lying to the police, and then the Crown would prosecute you - it costs them nothing, and it gets them punished.