An employer can't discriminate hiring an employee on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, or disability - but what about joblessness? Can a company refuse to hire you simply by the fact that you don't have a job?
Adam Cohen of TIME Magazine explores the phenomenon of jobless discrimination:
Job seekers have long known, of course, that it's easier to land a job when you are still working. There are no hard data on discrimination against the unemployed. But there have been reports from across the country of companies' making clear in job listings that they are not interested in people who are out of work. Employment experts say other companies have policies of hiring only people with jobs — but do not publicly acknowledge their bias. [...]
Some employers argue that they have a perfectly reasonable right to weed out the unemployed and that it is just good business. People who have lost jobs or have never been hired are less qualified as a group than those who are currently working, they say. People who are out of the workforce for a significant period of time may also have fallen behind in skills.
On the other hand, the people that usually get fired first are the one least prized by their organizations. And, since all employers look for the best talent at the lowest price, they want to pick from those working, thinking them to be more valuable than those not working.
Beating out both of these is the U.S. government...it will not hire anyone who owes back taxes. Why not? Then you know they are working and you can even garnish their wages if need be. Don't hire them and they may never be able to pay their back taxes.
Real smart Uncle Sam....
It's unfortunate because there are lots of people out there who need work and want to work!
In reality, companies are looking to cut costs. It's not always (and probably infrequently) JUST about cutting non-productive employees. In fact, I've seen cases where some of the best and most productive employees are let go. Again, it's about cutting costs. Sometimes that means eliminating entire divisions; sometimes that means letting go the highest paid and most senior employees.
Putting a bias against the unemployed is a poor hiring tactic.
Easy example: I work at a union company. In my department, I am on the lower end of seniority, despite the fact that I've worked there almost 5 years now. If the company needs to downsize, it doesn't matter the skills of the employees involved, they are automatically going to get rid of people who were hired last. There are people at the company who work in my job title who have worked their 20 years, and don't have even half of my skills. I know because I've been asked to help train them. In the event of downsizing, they would stay and I would leave. Granted, though, my company can be kind of smart about this by offering generous severance to try to get people at the higher-end of the seniorty track to leave voluntarily.
Other examples include bosses who fire people because they just don't like their personality. So a more efficient person gets fired because they aren't good at gossiping with the boss, but the office fuck-up gets to stay because he's best buddies with the boss. Though I guess the ability to play office politics is, in fact, a skill and it is one that you may be demonstrating that you lack. But, "all he does at work is WORK! What a terrible employee he is, don't hire him!" seems pretty damn idiotic.
I've been subjected to three hour telephone shotgun interviews, four interviews (my travelling expense) just to get shortlisted for a fifth interview - for an office tea makers job, interviews just to make up the numbers, employers looking at their watch in the middle of an interview, yawning in an interview...
I honestly think the employers need to have reality bashed into their thick heads.
Revolution today or destitution tomorrow. It's up to you. No one is going to give you your rights: You must take them.
Like it or not, a job is not a "right". Nor does your job belong to you. It's belongs to your employer. Unless you have a contract, they can remove it at anytime. It may be cruel, but it works out for the best.
What's being discussed is equal opportunity to a job, not a job as a right. Two very different things. I don't think anyone wants to go to the doctor's office only to find themselves being examined by a former construction worker with no medical training. You might question it as he pulls a needle out, but... "the housing market is down, and I have a right to a job".