

Unemployed Need not Apply - is it fair to discriminate against the unemployed? - rmah
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=3000008977

======
bartonfink
"Fair" is a four-letter word. Very little in life is "fair", and hiring is
probably one of the less "fair" arenas around. It may feel good to talk about
how "unfair" certain things seem, but in the end it's ultimately unproductive
and while you're bellyaching about "fair", someone else is just going to get
shit done and leave you in the dirt. "Fair" is a fairly useless concept in the
real world, and it's only going to muddy the waters if it gets brought up.

That said, it's almost certainly a bad idea to discriminate against the
unemployed as a hiring policy. Since corporate loyalty went out the window,
and the economy is currently in the toilet, the correlation between "applicant
employment status" and "applicant competence" is quite low. Good people get
laid off all the time, and if your company refuses to hire them ON THAT BASIS
ALONE then you're almost certainly making a non-optimal decision. Hell,
depending on your scruples the qualified currently-unemployed applicant might
be a great find because you have more leverage when it comes to salary
negotiation. Whether they are unemployed or moving on from their current job,
skilled applicants are skilled applicants and it's stupid to refuse to
consider them based on an antiquated notion that someone's employment status
strongly reflects their worth. Give their application the same 30 second
screening you'd give Joe Employed, and give them the same coding test or
exercises, and if they stand out then they stand out. What do you have to
lose?

~~~
techsupporter
The idea isn't that the prospective candidate isn't loyal. As the theory has
been described to me, a candidate who is still employed after the bloodbath
has been able to successfully navigate the "don't get fired because you're now
redundant" waters and remain "in the game." Allegedly this means that the
person is one or more of: a) valuable; b) competent; c) a good salesperson of
his or her worth. (That's the way the theory goes, at least; I'm sure we can
all think of plenty more reasons why someone remains employed that are not at
all desirable for future employers)

Regardless, being laid off in a down economy means "you suck" to some people
and, since everyone professes to only wants the "top 10%," that naturally
excludes the unemployed. It's akin to being arrested: You wouldn't have been
arrested (fired) if you weren't guilty (worthless as an employee).

For the record, I strongly disagree with this "theory," but that's how it's
been explained to me from two small business owners.

~~~
Duff
I think it depends on degree of unemployment. Folks in this 99 week situations
have been unemployed for nearly 2 years... you have to wonder at some point
why they haven't gotten some sort of job -- even a lousy one. For an IT job,
are you really qualified for many midlevel or senior positions after two years
of inactivity?

That's a long time on the bench.

~~~
bartonfink
I'd bet that someone who's been unemployed for 99 weeks without anything to
show for it (e.g. taking a trip around South America), probably doesn't have
midlevel or senior skills.

~~~
Duff
I think that's the issue many folks have. You coast up the salary band at a
big corporate or public sector employer and get accustomed to a $100k gig
coordinating paperclip management or something. At big companies especially,
it's easy to turn into an specialist on the processes within the company
instead of whatever your job title is.

Meanwhile, your marketable skills have eroded to the point that you no longer
fit where you feel you should.

------
TomOfTTB
I'd argue against a law like this (if it isn't already illegal). Like most
discrimination laws it would be complete unenforceable. Since an employer can
not hire you for any other reason. They can claim they didn't hire you because
you have a mustache (completely legal) when really it was because you were
previously unemployed.

Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no
intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview.

~~~
kenjackson
It's enforceable, just hard to enforce. But we shouldn't stop laws from being
on the books because they're hard to enforce. .

 _Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no
intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview._

While true in the abstract, how would you feel if couldn't get a job and
people said, "We don't give jobs to your race. But aren't you glad you know so
you don't waste time applying? And don't bother starting your own company, no
one buys products from companies of your kind either. Better hope there's
space in the welfare line."

While I may appreciate the time saved, I'd think it would be nice to be able
to prevent this sort of practice from running rampant. Even if through some
artificial measures like gov't contracts.

~~~
maxharris
The problem with your argument: you choose how hard you want to work at your
job, but you can't choose your race.

Racism is always irrational, and it's absolutely against the employer's long-
term rational self-interest to let race impact employment decisions.

Refusing to hire the unemployed no matter what the circumstance is definitely
irrational, but is that really what employers are doing?

~~~
kenjackson
To be clear I think that being unemployed, in of itself, isn't sufficient
reason to bring lawsuit. But, as stated in the video, if unemployed status is
a suitable proxy for a protected group then its a problem. So it has to live
in some context.

People can use whatever metric they want for hiring, IMO. But when the metric
is used as a means to get around other laws then its a problem (for example, a
bank saying, "We won't hire people that listen to Lil Wayne"). I thought
that's what the crux of the argument was about from the video.

------
27182818284
It isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem _moral_ during a recession either.

------
gexla
Why do people even need to say they have been unemployed? I have been a
freelance web developer for the last few years plus, that's job experience. I
keep myself very busy, but I'm not sure a potential employer would be able to
tell the difference if you were just creating a business and job position for
little more reason that serving as resume gap filler. To make it look as legit
is possible you could even create a business entity other than a sole
proprietorship (though that would cost you more money, maybe not good for
unemployed.) However, it would be a good idea to come up with a real business
that you could do cheaply and at least use that as something to give you hope
and take up some of your idle time.

~~~
locopati
Not all jobs are as amenable to freelancing as software

~~~
gexla
Yeah, but you could create anything. Lemonade stand. You are just thinking too
narrow.

------
angdis
It does suck as a policy, but this has been going on for a long time
regardless of how good or bad the economy is.

This is also why I am _always_ in a job search (even though I've never been
laid off). There is definitely a career "cost" that comes from the stigma of a
lay-off. And it absolutely is the case that being unemployed is a strike
against you in an employer's eyes even if they don't go as far as excluding
you from consideration.

I wish employers would take a more intelligent approach to hiring. Until they
do, good employees will jump ship at the first sign of trouble to avoid the
risk of a lay-off.

------
larrik
What a lazy weed-out policy.

As an anecdote, when I took my current job in October 2010, I was the only
currently working applicant out of hundreds or so to apply for the job, and
I'm the one who got it.

------
rbarooah
Seems like a CYA kind of policy.

~~~
rmah
I don't see how. Wouldn't it increase your liability risk? That's more like
OYA :-)

~~~
rbarooah
The liability would be hard to prove and the plaintiff is unlikely to be in a
position to drag it through the courts.

On the other if you hire a dud, your boss can easily regard it as your fault
and look for mistakes you made.

