Jobless Discrimination?

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.

Link


On the one hand, not hiring someone because they don't have a job is putting people laid off to no fault of their own in a catch 22. They need a job to pay the bills, but they can't get a job because they don't have a job.

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....
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There are plenty of unspoken hiring guidelines that many companies follow, not just about your employment status. And there are plenty of ways to make it appear that these practices aren't in place -- even when they are.

It's unfortunate because there are lots of people out there who need work and want to work!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This only perpetuates the problem of people taking jobs just for the sake of getting better jobs, and does nothing for gaining worker loyalty. The problem with so many companies is that they treat their employees as liabilities, and not assets.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Companies can discriminate against political party affiliation. If a company only wants to hire republicans, for example, there is no law saying it can't do so, and not hire a democrat.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
So what am I to do? The longer I'm out of work the less likely I am to get work? Then I'm called lazy and worthless by society. And obviously by these comments I'm already assumed to be the most useless aspect of a company. BTW, I was laid off about a year after a serious fuck-up. A YEAR! When did they finally gave me the boot? When I told them I was pregnant. So now I have a kid, no job, and a bunch of people assuming I'm some sort of useless idiot. Yay!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is a small amount of logic in saying that the unemployed are let go because they were "least prized" by the company. Unfortunately, many companies buy into this logic when hiring.

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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's a fallacy to assume a company is going to let go of only it's least worthy employees, and keep it's most worthy ones. There are a lot of factors that make that absolutely not true.

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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The biggest problem with employment is the bloody employers.

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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Overthrow the ignominy that is capitalism and institute a real Bill of Rights: one that provides food (a right), shelter (another right) and labor ( yet still another right).

Revolution today or destitution tomorrow. It's up to you. No one is going to give you your rights: You must take them.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
You might want to reexamine what you are calling a "right". Who is going to provide you with food, shelter, and a job? A "right" does not involve staking claim to the fruits of someone else's labor. "The pursuit of happiness" is not a guarantee that you will achieve it. That part is up to you.

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".
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sony Ericksson was the company featured in Time Magazine who, as a matter of written policy, is only considering people for employment who are currently working. When the story broke with understandable public outrage, Sony quickly stated that this policy was a ‘mistake.’ Folks, this was no mistake. This was a planned strategic move by Sony to eliminate those people (try 17% of America’s working population) perceived as damaged goods. Sony is not alone. Many companies are adhering to this retched approach to hiring ‘the best and the brightest.’ Instead of getting angry (easy to do), we need to organize and make an example of Bert Norberg (CEO of Sony Ericsson). (1) Coast to Coast boycott of their products; (2) pressure brought to bear on all public entities to rid themselves of any S.E. stock currently held in investment, pension, etc. portfolios; (3) a grass roots effort to harass and otherwise make the life of Bert Nordberg as miserable as it can possibly be made. How many more times are we, as a people, going to bend over and ‘take it.’ It is time for war.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 13 comments
Email This Post to a Friend
"Jobless Discrimination?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More