DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 10:04:17 AM
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/02/BUOT1M70LE.DTL&tsp=1 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/02/BUOT1M70LE.DTL&tsp=1)
this maybe one of the reason recovery is so slow since little effort is made to lower unemployment.
-
by this logic ,wouldn`t college grads be rejected.?
-
Did the author interview the job poster to see why that language was included?
-
Most likely no
I first heard this in npr and it stated very few employers will answer why they do this and the one that actually answered was extremely hesitant.
-
I'd be curious to know if there is a logical business reason for doing so, leaving emotional arguments to the side for the time being.
-
It's probly a preconceived notion that anyone unemployed is likely deserving of being laidoff.despite it public knowledge that many people lose jobs from businesses closing. I brought this up with my friend and his response is that by only hiring employed people that business SHOULD expect a higher turnover since the loyality element cannot be factored in .
-
Another friend just told me that said buiness will likely be hiring disgruntled employees instead of eager one from the unemployment pool.
-
It's probly a preconceived notion that anyone unemployed is likely deserving of being laidoff.
I don't think that would be it. It would be interesting to know if it was because of some regulation that makes hiring someone currently unemployed ends up costing the company more in some way.
Or maybe it is a way of filtering the number of applicants and resumes that an open job would generate. We've all seen the picture where 5000 people are lined up for 50 jobs and the vast majority are unqualified and just need to put a company name and date when they fill out their unemployment reports each week.
-
Then it's more of a shame. Alot of those applicants will hit a entry level jobs they totally over qualify for and know they'll never get and only apply for the unemployment. Ex. Dell just advertised a job with no experienced needed and likely people are applying not expecting a response.
-
an applicant being unemployed is certainly not a deal killer
i've hired lots of both types
but as a business owner hiring people is a bit of a "crap shoot"
it's like drafting a college player into the NFL ...or finding a spouse
you never really know what your getting
you look for clues and try to make as good of an "educated guess" as possible
just like in the NFL or dating....you go thru many...to find a good one...and it's costly
so when an applicant comes in and says "well I been outta work the last 3 years....just cant find anything"
that's a one clue for me...not the entire picture....but a clue
because no matter if I was a lawyer, doctor, PHD Professor, CEO, CFO...whatever
I would never "not be able to find anything in 3 years"
I'd wait tables, paint address numbers on curbs, sweep floors, wash dishes, be a security guard....I'd do something
so for an employer there is an aspect of wanting people that will do anything to survive
you want people that are self motivated...that get up every morning just simply unwilling to sit at home
but again it isn't the whole enchilada
there are frequent cases where an unemployed candidate would be better than the employed applicant
this isn't an exact science
but i can certainly see how this plays into one part of the big picture decision
just like someone telling me in an interview they've had "tons of health problems the last 5 years"
someone saying "i haven't been able to find a job in years"...all things equal is definitely not a plus.
-
This goes further,since the the unemployed s not even allowed to apply. It is a deal breaker. But I just remembered one employer said it's to save money doing background checks,so it maybe HR cost is a factor?
-
i doubt it....
we never do a background check until you get the list narrowed down to the final small group
why waste the money until you have your final best group of candidates?
-
that`s the funny part those folks will never make it to to the short list. so the the employers excuse gets abit shady. remember no response has been given from the emplyers why they do this. you don`t qualify since you admit your willing to look at take application from the unemployed these companies won`t.
I wonder did this effect sony-ericson when this became public?
-
i doubt it....
we never do a background check until you get the list narrowed down to the final small group
why waste the money until you have your final best group of candidates?
Interesting. In the IT industry, a background check is not done until an offer is extended. The offer is always contingent on passing a background check / drug screen.
-
I always think if thier willing to pay for a drug test, then I got the job. in matter of HR cost is always a factor. very few business is willing to pay unless they have to. unless of course they`re convince to pay for some cost saveing system that may or may not work.
let just say oracal got alot of free money from the state of california a while back.
-
Interesting. In the IT industry, a background check is not done until an offer is extended.
The offer is always contingent on passing a background check / drug screen.
I am sure it can vary industry to industry.....
drug screening during the hiring process would seem to not be a very reliable indicator
they can hide drug use by temporary abstinence....they cant really hide decades of background data
but again it depends of the industry....obviously a pilot will be drug tested from day one whether it
really is a very effective indicator or not
In my mind it's best to avoid extending an offer and then have to retract it.
I'd rather do 2-4 background checks...
review the background results and all other info behind closed doors..and then extend the offer
I have found that "the less said the better" as far as potential litigation
by making an offer then retracting it over a background check
you are basically giving a specific reason why you didn't hire the person
i prefer to not do that, instead just state "it was a tough decision & we feel like we hired the best candidate".
which is a true statement with no specifics
the "You're hired...Oooops no you're not" kind of throws up a red flag unnecessarily to me.
-
I always find funny that companies are willing to pay for the first but not the second if test is contested. companieas don`t like giving second chances on drug testes. I remember one lady paid for the second one herself from another vender and the employer got upset. it`s not like she has cause to trust thier vender.
-
Kimba....many of those drug tests are not perfect either
we've had a few guys we KNEW were doing drugs
but they always passed the test
we think they carried some kind of "pass any drug test" concoction from a head-shop
then we were told about the only 100% fool proof drug test is a head hair sample
so we started doing that....and it worked
but guess what?....the one guy we suspect....he now keeps his head shaved
he never did before....words out about how we drug test now...so this dude shaves his head
we could maybe take other hair samples....but that can get tricky and you need sufficient hair
hell i'd rather concentrate on sales than running a daycare for adults!
-
very few drugs stay long in the body, so it`s pretty easy to pass exccept of course hair. but also it depends on what kinds of drugs also. I very much doubt any business will spring for a test for all drugs. so as long as you keep clean for all the big ones it`s totally doable.
armpit should be more than enough. very few people shave that and it`s way less embarassing than the other source.
but I wonder would deoderant ruin the test?
-
i tend to doubt that it would. the test is for a specific compound, which would be there deodorant or not. asking people for hair is a clear invasion of privacy, anyway.
-
I believe hair is also the most expensive, so very few companies will automaticlly make it standard.
cost is always a factor. I`ve seen companies try to make guards pay for the gas on the company car. penny pinching will always be common.
-
The bad part if any of the unemployed gets a macdonalds job no corporate business will ever hire them. I know three guys who did this and none has yet got a corporate job.. It's a complete resume killer. Security is ok,but fastfood or 7-11 after college will hurt you badly. Ever notice you never hear of anybody working thier way from fast food.
-
Ever notice you never hear of anybody working thier way from fast food.
Me. My wife. Several of my coworkers.
-
Again i said it wrong
Meant getting a corporate job right after a fast food one.
Ex. CPA working at mcdonalds then trying to work at arthur anderson or any big company.
-
Again i said it wrong
Meant getting a corporate job right after a fast food one.
Ex. CPA working at mcdonalds then trying to work at arthur anderson or any big company.
Me. My wife. Several coworkers.
-
then i stand corrected.
your the first I`ve heard of this. hopefully employers nowadays don`t count such jobs against them.
-
I am sure some do, and others don't. It is likely to be a personal attitude of the HR director.
-
i would certainly see it as a plus
one guy sitting at home waiting on the job he wants
the other willing to work no matter what until he gets what he wants
hell....i know which one i'd prefer
-
plus i remember fondly being a dishwasher
after fresh, soph, jr, years of high school
man we had a good time back in that kitchen
always liked making work fun
-
I was not unemployed from the time I left HS until I retired at 65. I imagine I would take any job I could physically endure. But such jobs are often not available. I certainly could not have found work in central WV after they cut back on the faculty by dismissing 15 of 70 faculty members. So I moved to Va.