The Laughter, It Hurts

[Vene]

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.

Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.

"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."

Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.

After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.

But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.

"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.

She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed

More here

[AFK]

And this was part of the reason I took the job I have now, instead of waiting, rolling the dice, getting laid off and then seeking a new job.  That bias has always been there.  Employers look at getting laid off because of lack of work/position being eliminated as being the same as being fired for being incompetent/doing something wrong.  It's not new and it's unlikely to ever change. 

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

And this was part of the reason I took the job I have now, instead of waiting, rolling the dice, getting laid off and then seeking a new job.  That bias has always been there.  Employers look at getting laid off because of lack of work/position being eliminated as being the same as being fired for being incompetent/doing something wrong.  It's not new and it's unlikely to ever change. 

THIS!!

It has always been easier to get a job when you already have one!

[AFK]

And it's another reason sometime you have to suck up your pride and take a job you wouldn't otherwise take.  It certainly is not a job-seeker's market right now.  But, at least if you have A job, it helps take that bias away.  Even in this economy, someone with a gap in their resume is going to be seen as "lazy" and "unmotivated", no matter what the circumstances.  It's not right, of course.  It's the reason I was in Retail Hell as long as I was.  The environmental jobs just weren't there after I got my degree, but I had to work somewhere.  And at first I thought, "Wow, this substance abuse agency isn't going to hire a guy who has a retail work-history."  But, they did and I was able to sell that experience as a plus.  It's all in the marketing. 

[Jenne]

Temping is a good way out of this, and so is an unpaid internship ANYWHERE.  I think the fact that employers don't want to be SEEN as employing the idle (however erroneous that assumption on the unemployed is) should deter anyone from resting on their laurels.  Even better:  get your education.  I admire Suu and folks like her who are willing to literally start their careers OVER for the sake of having a better future eventually, even though immediate reward is in the distant future.

I wish I could convince my two younger brothers of this.  They are hitting their heads on a salary cap/glass ceiling in their early 30's after years with the same companies because they couldn't be arsed in their late teens/early 20's to stick it out with some lousy AA program long enough to do themselves any good.

[Cain]

Uh "workfare".

If you don't hire them, the government will eventually give them to you for free anyway.  Its happening in the UK, and our new system (well, newish, Labour started to introduce it, with some caveats) is based on the welfare plans Clinton bought in.  People over here have worked for companies for 3-12 months with no pay except the Jobseekers benefit the govt gives them (roughly £50-60 a week).  Why would you bother taking someone on, especially when minimum wage laws dictate you'd be paying them 4 times that, when they can be had almost for free?

[Jenne]

We call those "unpaid internships" over here, Cain.  It's supposed to be an "entry-level, foot-in-the-door" position, mainly for those training for a new job or those who haven't finished college/university but are about to and need to intern somewhere to get a foothold in the company.  Nowadays, there's "more" of them, but I'm not sure what the labor laws are on them.  I know there's been such a cut back in labor at the small companies that they are relying on people to handle the job of 4 people to a person in some cases...and from what NPR's "Marketplace" reports say, this trend is unlikely to be reversed since the companies are watching their bottom lines and have figured out how to sustain this fucked up practice.

And they are saving at a higher rate, more saving going on in companies than there has been in the last SIXTY YEARS!  So it's not like they can't afford more people, they're just "saving for a rainy day" since it's been cat-and-dog weather for the economy for so long.

[Cain]

These aren't internships.  I did an internship, under no coercion whatsoever, knowing I would not get paid and it was temporary.  And I was totally fine with that, since at the time I was financially secure and it did not interfere with my studies.  Under the government plan, you are forced to do this, or else your meagre benefits are cut off, and, well, you starve to death or whatever, the government doesn't really care because poor people caused the recession or something.  They try to apply the rhetoric of internships to it, it's true, but there is a vast difference, in that most people who do internships are there because they want to be, not because some bureaucrat in a cubicle (probably recieving kickbacks from the company in question) placed them there under pain of having no money at all to live on.

[Jenne]

These aren't internships.  I did an internship, under no coercion whatsoever, knowing I would not get paid and it was temporary.  And I was totally fine with that, since at the time I was financially secure and it did not interfere with my studies.  Under the government plan, you are forced to do this, or else your meagre benefits are cut off, and, well, you starve to death or whatever, the government doesn't really care because poor people caused the recession or something.  They try to apply the rhetoric of internships to it, it's true, but there is a vast difference, in that most people who do internships are there because they want to be, not because some bureaucrat in a cubicle (probably recieving kickbacks from the company in question) placed them there under pain of having no money at all to live on.

Ah, yes, that's totally different.  And repugnant in the extreme, too.

[Requia ☣]

Internships are also usually something you can put on a resume.  Not working at a wal-mart.

[Jenne]

Internships are also usually something you can put on a resume.  Not working at a wal-mart.

Um, untrue.  Actually, it usually depends on where you're applying, relevant work history needing to be reported, etc.  But if you have a period of say 6 mos to a year that you're leaving off your work history, your employer's going to assume you're unemployed.  Better to put that you did a stint as a stockperson or cashier at a retail chain than collecting unemployment.

[Requia ☣]

Erm, that was badly stated.  I mean that an internship suggests you have job skills relevant to jobs other than retail etc.