if you think about it this may hurt the economy

[kimba1]

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.

[kimba1]

by this logic ,wouldn`t college grads be rejected.?

[BT]

Did the author interview the job poster to see why that language was included?

[kimba1]

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.

[BT]

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.

[kimba1]

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 .

[kimba1]

Another friend just told me that said buiness will likely be hiring disgruntled employees instead of eager one from the unemployment pool.

[BT]

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.

[kimba1]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[kimba1]

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?

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?

[kimba1]

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?

[Amianthus]

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.

[kimba1]

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.