Need Insight Here

[R. Richard]

Apparently, there are a large numer of companies who won't even interview people who don't currently have a job. Is it that the personnel people at the companies are so bereft of skills that they have to only consider people who have been currentoly accepted by other personnel people? Of course, the result is that the pool of currently employed will continue to make more and more money, since they are the only ones suitable for employment? Are the inmates running the asylum? Please, let's hear from those who work in personnel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nothing surprises me when it comes to HR staff and their asinine practices. Most companies are doing two things: Pushing down the money they pay, and raising the qualifications bar. That is, they want an 18 year old with 20 years experience, an MBA degree, and willing to work as needed for minimum wage.

 

[R. Richard]

If I weren't already running my own company with a workload that takes up all of my time, I would start a company that would hire people who would PAY THE COMPANY $51 a month, for a job that pays $1 a month. Then the employees of my company could go out and get a decent job, since they're already employed. Of course, my company wouldn't discuss employee salaries with anyone, most defiinitely including other company's personnel departments.

 

[oggbashan]

As a former HR person, all I was interested in was getting the best person for the particular post.

Unemployed or employed didn't matter except that several periods of short employment in a couple of years would need a reasonable explanation, as would the reason for leaving, or wanting to leave, the last employer.

As I was recruiting people all over the UK, and Northern Ireland, the local employment situation was likely to decide whether I was interviewing people currently employed or unemployed. NE England in the early 1980s? Every candidate was unemployed yet I found good, well-qualified, well-motivated staff who were an asset to the company.

Now that HR has become much more of a graduate position with only people with HR qualifications in post, the stupid recruitment practices that their lecturers advocate get more used. When HR people had been line managers, they knew what to look for, and what to avoid.

In the UK, employment legislation has become so complex, with arcane regulations, that semi-legal training is necessary to avoid breaking one employment law or another. It shouldn't stop HR people from selecting the best candidates but it can.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

In the UK, employment legislation has become so complex, with arcane regulations, that semi-legal training is necessary to avoid breaking one employment law or another. It shouldn't stop HR people from selecting the best candidates but it can.

Og

The situation in the USA has become quite similar. Incidently you have a spelling error. The phrase 'arcane regulations' should be 'insane regulations.'

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

The current situation is insane. The local sheriff has 204 vacant positions because so few applicants pass the rigorous screening process. The sheriff still gets the money for the positions from the county commission but erects impossible hiring barriers.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

The current situation is insane. The local sheriff has 204 vacant positions because so few applicants pass the rigorous screening process. The sheriff still gets the money for the positions from the county commission but erects impossible hiring barriers.

Now, be fair here JBJ. I'm sure that, with a bit of determination, the candidates could force themselves to eat that many doughnuts. Okay, it would be tough, but it can be done, especially if the candidates avoid the jelly doughnuts.

 

[OzoneRed]

This is nothing new, although it may be becomming more common. My first employer followed this policy for the office staff 40 years ago. I started in the factory, where the policy didn't apply.

The way it was explained to me, an unemployed person will accept just about any job s/he can get, but will jump ship as soon as a better offer comes along. An employed person is more likely to accept a job only if they really like the opportunity, and therefore is more likely to become a long-term employee.

 

[alwayswantedto]

An already employed person who joins your company has just proven they don't have any loyalty to their former employer, perhaps with good reason, but why would they have more for the new employer?

 

[R. Richard]

The way it was explained to me, an unemployed person will accept just about any job s/he can get, but will jump ship as soon as a better offer comes along. An employed person is more likely to accept a job only if they really like the opportunity, and therefore is more likely to become a long-term employee.

I worked for a company in San Diego. I managed to get the company to hire in an ex-military guy, who could do what the company needed. The guy's starting rate was based on military pay and was way low, similar to hiring an unemployed person. As the new guy performed, day by day, I urged that the company give him a raise or at least a bonus, to move him more to the rate that he deserved. The Senior VP sneered at me that he had a real bargain and that he didn't need my help to run the place. At the end of a year, the ex-military guy moved to a place where they would pay him more like what he was worth, but still below fair pay. The company I was working for then paid up to replace the departed military guy. Of course, then several more people then left, costing the company a ton to replace people who followed the underpaid guy out the door. If you take advantage of people to hire cheap, it will wind up costing more in the long run. (If you pay too much, it will also cost you not only the extra wages, but having hired the kind of people who always seem to be more expert at getting paid, rather than working.)

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's the invisible hand of the free market at work. Haven't you heard? Anyone who's unemployed must be a deadbeat.

Of course, the Government didn't care if I was unemployed when they hired me for the Census. I'm working with a LOT of unemployed baby-boomers, many with graduate degrees. Of course, between age 45 and retirement, you're too old, unhealthy, and expensive for any private employer to consider in this economy.