"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held hearings Wednesday in Washington to explore a hiring trend seen in job ads. Phrases such as “no unemployed candidates will be considered” or “must be currently employed” are peppering job boards and want ads."
...so they are reviewing the practice to determine whether or not some employers are discriminating? which could also translate into human rights cases?...if so, it's good they are reviewing it....and those employers could experience heavy penalties...
Businesses are becoming more and more cut throat from what I can tell. Banks are leading the wolf pack with their unscrupulous tactics, and greed. Evidence is simply the profits they rake in while bankrupting their customers.
In a time of economic trouble, it is infinitely wiser for businesses to provide opportunities so that Americans can help reestablish a healthy economy, not worsen it by creating consumers who have no ability to provide themselves.
The mentality of the news release completely escapes me. It's reprehensible at first glance.
yes, I saw that last night on the news. I think it's terrible that a company would only hire someone who already is employed, assuming unemployed people are somehow less qualified. I'm pretty sure it's one reason why there are still so many unemployed. Companies may not post like that ad, but they simply exclude them from consideration.
I once saw an article about an ad where a person would only hire someone with a new car!
As if there weren't enough hoops to jump through to get a job...now you have to have one to get one!
They do it to themselves though...because now after someone goes through the necessary three interviews for acceptance...and has all their paperwork in order...and are given a job offer...Someone can easily just say "No Thanks...I already have a job!"
There's also another splash of lemon juice on this paper cut: Companies have so many potential candidates that they low ball salaries for new employees, continuing the stress on the economy while the company's profits continue to climb. Additionally, young candidates are prized over experienced, seasoned candidates, because they know they will have a much easier time creating "yes-men" in training them, and less resistance than they would from mature, experienced workers.
But that's the illusion, isn't it. What is unethical or underhanded or not above board is not going to be accepted by your average, ethical worker. New, eager, hungry hires will go with the flow to keep the job, but in the end, they will rock the boat.
Business culture is very hostile toward its employees and to its customers in most cases.
I have decided to compile a list of American companies that are engaging in this practice. This is slow going. If anyone knows of any perpetrators, posting their names here for all to see would be a good thing.
So far, I have found:
“NATIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGER - HOME DEPOT Job in Atlanta, Georgia US. Candidates must be currently employed ***. Good fits: Power Tools and Accessories, Pneumatics, Lawn and Garden, Plumbing, Paint, Building products, ...”
Here is an article someone I know posted on Facebook.
Another worth reading, with regards to jobs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou … -not-apply
WOW! 4,229 Comments in response to that article.
I'm now going through the links in it looking for perpetrators, i.e. taking names and kicking…
I have now published an ongoing hub on this subject.
Please get those contributions coming in!
I'm not surprised at these job columns. In third world countries this is going on for quite some time, say- last 5 years.
Gotta have money to make money!!
Make the rich richer and the poor poorer!!
Makes sense to me to discriminate against the unemployed! What an idiot for being unemployed to begin with!!
Looks like those ads are disappearing fast! CYA at its best.
One company is now even advertising, “Attention Unemployed! …We will hire you…”
Chief amongst them Starbucks and, I think, Nordstroms. Can't remember. But came across quite a few of them about a year ago.
DAMN! The comments count in that article dropped from 4229 to 3123. And it’s now closed. I bet those 1000+ entries were the ones that named names.
Onward to Google cache…
It doesn't surprise me at all. It's been a common practice in business as far back as I can remember, and that's pretty far back. The employeed job seekers are always preferred by employers over the unemployeed. It's so prevalent that many states give tax credits to businesses as incentives to hire unemployeed workers over employeed ones.
I may have to abort this project. I’m only finding ads from little companies that no one would care about.
I am now seeking advice as to search techniques.
My dialup account is killing me as usual, so any direct text-only-non-live culprit ad links would also be appreciated.
I think some businesses still equate 'unemployed' with the stereotypical unemployed person from decades ago. The newly unemployed are very often skilled, educated workers who are working just as hard to find employment.
Those that oppose unemployment benefit extensions are the very people that should be hiring, (and they are often business owners), but it doesn't appear to be so. It looks more like a political statement to me, but I'll leave it at that since this is in a different topic category. To equate unemployed workers with laziness is just absurd. There are many lazy, unqualified, employed people! Look around. Companies should be more interested in hiring the right person, not whether they're an unemployed worker. If a worker is so quick to switch jobs, it might benefit the hiring employer to find out why from the current employer, not the job candidate.
I just been to a mandatory class to relearn job interviewing skills and job searching skills through unemployment.
The lady conducting the class stated that employers are now looking at how long the person has been employed. The length of unemployment is an indicator that the person is less motivated to work.
Not hiring any unemployed people could be the result of the same type of thinking. They may automatically think the employee did something to get fired, or the employee was not good enough to keep their job when lay offs were happening. Either way, I would think this would be discrimination and illegal.
it still seems these companies are only adding to this growing problem, making it even harder for those unemployed to find employment. Don't they see their hypocrisy?
No. To them all they see is a huge demand for jobs, and they get to be extremely choosy who they hire.
If the economy ever turned around, and there were more jobs than employees, then they would stop this practice, give more benefits, raise the wages, and do what they could to get the employees they needed. That would only be for the good businesses.
I know darn well this is an American national bank:
“Interested applicants must be currently employed in the mortgage industry. ...”
Craigslist is loaded with the “must be currently employed” phrase, but they’re all apparently blind ads that don’t reveal the employer.
What to do... What to do...
And this is showing up a lot.
"This posting has been deleted by its author."
Well good luck with any 'punishment' on that one. They will wiggle out of it all, isn't that what corporate lawyers are for? They simply lawyer up and that's that.
Well, folks. I’ve come up with a lame list of six. The high profile ads all seem to be gone and not a cache in sight…
Hopefully, I’ll find ways to add to this list in the future.
Here is the EEOC testimony link for any who are interested:
that article is very interesting, it should upset a lot of people, rightfully. it's funny how people are so quick to blame the government for no job creation; it appears jobs are there but the unemployed aren't the ones being offered the job. People should boycott these companies blatantly stating a job candidate cannot be unemployed. Is it any wonder why the economy is in such slow recovery.
Essentially, the reasoning behind all this is as follows:
1) People who are out of work are lame ducks. Therefore one doesn't want to employ them.
2) If people are currently that one is in, then they have a list of contacts and inside information that will be of benefit to the current employer.
The reason that they can get away with this is because there is only one job for every five people that are looking for work in the United States. That means many employees will do anything in order to get a job.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
IF YOU HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR A LONG TIME, YOU ARE VIRTUALLY DAMNED, WELL IN THE EYES OF SOME EMPLOYERS! If you are unemployed for a long period of time, BEWARE! According to employment ads, many employers prefer to hire people who are currently employed over people who have been...
by leeberttea 10 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/ar … employmentThis is interesting, in spite of high unemployment some firms are having trouble hiring! One of the reasons sited in this article is extended unemployment benefits. Can it be that entitlements are preventing folks from returning to work as...
by Oscar Jones 4 years ago
What about rights for a US born citizen? Does an American mixed-ancestry get any preference here?I know I have English, French, Jewish, American Indian, and other race strains, Yet I was born in the USA, and seem to be the butt of all political blame. my paternal grandfather showed Indian features,...
by Eric Sanders 7 years ago
Are 'English-Only' Rules Legal in the Workplace?The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that 'English-Only' rules for workplace employees violate the law unless they are “reasonably necessary to the operation of the business.” Are they correct?
by globalserenity 11 years ago
Where do you draw the line? What does it take for you to leave a job? Is it enough to simply wake up dreading the trip to work everyday? Or is it an emotional breakdown that's needed for you to finally see the light? For me...it was a breakdown unfortunately. Not that I regret being there, I...
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have both been suspended by Fox News. The suspension is for 60 days. If they don't announce their candidacy for president during this time, they can come back.Now, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin have not been suspended. Both are widely expected to run in 2012 as...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|