 |
| Credit: The New York Times, screengrabs from Craigslist |
The unemployed need not apply.
That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work. A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off. [snip]
Some are for small businesses, and others for giants, including the commercial University of Phoenix (which, like some other companies, removed the ads after an inquiry by The New York Times) or the fast-food chain Pollo Tropical. They cover jobs at all skill levels, including hotel concierges, restaurant managers, teachers, I.T. specialists, business analysts, sales directors, account executives, orthopedics device salesmen, auditors and air-conditioning technicians.While I might be able to understand the general thought process of the employers (human capital destruction, etc.), this is just terrible news for the unemployed. What's worse, the article doesn't really offer any solutions for the problem and suggests that incentives won't work ("An experiment from the 1980s found that telling companies that the unemployed were eligible for generous wage subsidies actually made employers less likely to hire such workers.")
Chemistry employers, please don't do this. Pick the best person for the job, regardless of employment status. And for those out there looking for a position in chemistry, if you see this in the job ads, I'd really appreciate it if you let me know if you see this.
*Private to the New York Times: if you want to help an unemployed person out, don't take a picture of her with a distracting dog in the foreground. Whiskey Tango Hotel, over.
I guess I don't understand why employers would discriminate against the long-term unemployed. Just because they are out of work, that doesn't mean they aren't qualified and wouldn't be a good employee.
ReplyDeleteHave we decided that the long-term unemployed are a new caste of Untouchables?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a real concern, and one that the government should take some pains to attempt to address.
ReplyDeleteThe government has no intention of stepping in and helping anyone but their own greedy, fat asses. Neither do the CEOs of any big pharmas (or as the Republicans call them, "job creators"). The working class in this country is f---ed.
ReplyDeleteMust be my naivete here, but wouldn't you think it would be ideal to hire someone with no job? Then you wouldn't necessarily have to extricate them from their current job, i.e. with extra incentives, re-lo, what have you.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the folks writing these ads don't know what it's like to be out on unemployment, wishing you could do ANYTHING work related, but of course unable to find a permanent gig.
All the commotion and anxiety not with standing...I sincerely believe that no one really cares. I mean even if you bring stringent laws, these cases are very hard to prove in the court of law and the companies knows that well. With Washington is disarray, do I need to say more? Sadly, the long term unemployed have been forsaken and I am very disturbed about this. Unless there is some collective vision on this issue...like I said no one cares!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the folks writing these ads don't know what it's like to be out on unemployment, wishing you could do ANYTHING work related, but of course unable to find a permanent gig.
ReplyDeleteThis.
The Human part of Human Resources seems to be lacking in this day and age, on many levels. Layoffs to these folks are 'projects'. People who can't find a job after a certain period of time must be 'unemployable'.
After the latest round of layoffs here, it was learned that the whole thing had a name. Project: Landscaping.
I guess the folks who were let go were nothing more than weeds to be pulled. Guess that made the folks passing out the notices Roundup.
The psychology of this problem is very simple: If you are unemployed you must not be any good because if you were any good you would be employed. So why would I hire someone no one wants?
ReplyDeleteThis psychology has been around forever thus the old adage - it is better to look for a job while you still have a job. What has changed is that this problem has become much more common in this terrible employment and downsizing environment. The one thing it is not: a new problem.
Obviously, that's right (re: new problem.) But I suspect it's at a magnitude that's never been seen before. Presumably, the countermeasures would be unprecedented, too.
ReplyDeleteif you think being unemployed is a bad enough reference in the current job market situation, try to imagine what it must be like to be fired from your previous job, on a false pretense, as a retaliation (for pointing out cases of repeated plagiarism condoned by the management). In my case the HR director at my ex-employer has been claiming that I am 1) mentally unstable 2) have been making death threats and bomb threats against him.
ReplyDeleteI've mentioned it on here before, but this is the sort of thing a chemist's union could address.
ReplyDeleteAt the point such discrimination is a minor issue. The many millions of foreigners flying in to take American jobs is a far greater problem. The fact is, once here, they never leave because no one checks!
ReplyDeleteCorrupt universities bringing in armies of foreigners to take US jobs.
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_18492754?nclick_check=1
Human resources staff are extremely lazy. Reading resumes and determining if past experience could be reapplied takes skill in the industry hiring. HR does not have that skill, therefore they block qualified people from being considered by hiring managers who have the skill to realize value in experience. Those in HR rather chose a fresh foreign PhD than give someone with 10+ years experience a chance to reapply past skills.
ReplyDeleteI am utterly disgusted by the call for new scientists because "no US citizen wants to be a scientist." This is from companies who have stolen the careers of thousands of scientists. Stop discarding chemists. Consider experienced people for jobs. Stop trying to make stronger connections to China by hiring Chinese scientists for jobs based in the US. Perhaps if you looked around you'd see that US chemists are not making more than Chinese chemists. Why outsource everything when insourcing is the same or lower cost? Oh, but they say you must strengthen bonds so China will buy the products of your company! The Chinese will not be buying the products of companies trying to strengthen bonds with China anyway, they are busy stealing IP to make generics domestically.
A4:37p:
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that the named *fake* universities were not be able to place any students with the advertised tech companies.
As bad as that is, it won't matter in a week when the Republicans intentionally crash the economy and we're all out of work. I haven't asked my company what the plan is yet, but I don't expect to hold onto a job for very long.
ReplyDelete"I've mentioned it on here before, but this is the sort of thing a chemist's union could address."
ReplyDeleteReally? How? How are unions going to help chemists more than they've helped other professions?
How'd it work out for the air-controllers? How's it working out for the mill workers in South Carolina who now have to buy their tube socks from China? How's it working out for the auto-workers who used to work in Flint, or in Gary (Ind.)? How about the steel workers in any number of crap towns in PA? How about the farm workers? They have a union, you think that's a job anyone longs for? Heck grocery workers have a union (to which I used to belong), ask them how they feel about their recent deal with supermarkets in CA.
Unless you really think that all of PFE's or AMGN's chemists are really going to walk a picket line for for an extended period to enable these rights, you're fooling yourself. Yup, the teamster's have some good benefits and rights, but it's tough to outsource truck driving (though NAFTA has begun to eat away at this). The union movement was a tremendous boon to society, but (and I'm not saying this is for better or for worse) it's done. As long as someone can do your job cheaper, they'll get the chance.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAs bad as that is, it won't matter in a week when the Republicans intentionally crash the economy and we're all out of work. I haven't asked my company what the plan is yet, but I don't expect to hold onto a job for very long. "
The Cut Cap and Balance bill would have been passed last week if Obama hadn't thrown a temper tantrum that he wanted a blank check all the way through the 2012 elections. Debt was 1 trillion when he entered office. It is now 14.5+ trillion and counting. Those "rich" Obama wants to tax? Those are small business that will go under if Obama gets his ways! Small businesses who would hire if they had any hope that they could project their expenses (tax, health care) in the next year. Republicans are only doing what their constituents voted them in to office to do. Stop Obama from giving the US to China.
Last time I checked there are supposed to be three balanced branches of the US government. Obama is demanding to be dictator of two branches.
Dude, I don't know what your math skills are, but the debt was greater than 10T's when Obama hit office - his deficits have been gargantuan but at least part of it was the bank bailouts and stimuli to fix the econ that W helped sack. (I thought lowering tax rates on the rich was supposed to make a stable, productive economy. It doesn't seemed to have worked that way - the only thing stable the tax cuts have created are federal deficits. If you can't cut spending (or can't do so and get reelected), then tax cuts are for the mathematically handicapped.) I can't imagine how much crack I'd have to smoke to think that scheduling a raise for the debt ceiling during an election year is going end in anything other than a fiasco.
ReplyDeleteI guess the Rs will get to try to nuke the economy again. At least they can do something.
I'm cynical enough to think that employers would hold off on jobs to get people desperate enough to mutilate themselves to be or remain employed. If losing your job means entering the ranks of the long-term employed and permanent unemployability, people will then do almost anything (probably including sexual favors and kickbacks) not to lose their jobs, and current short-term unemployed (and current employed) would have far less selectivity in taking another job or in keeping the ones they have. I can't rationally see how such behavior could occur, because there's too many employers, too many diverse interests, and too many loose lips to assume that so many people could act in a concerted fashion and get away with it, but I still wonder.
ReplyDeleteEmployers do what they have to do to get work done at lower cost. Many have decided that you should be employed or there is something wrong with you. Funny how this should be more true in good times than bad, but in good times, employers are desperate to get people to do work. In the 90's employers saw money everywhere and needed people to get it. Now they see expenses everywhere, and they want to keep more of their money.
ReplyDeleteNot hiring the unemployed is probably an evolved response. I'm sure there are tons of applications from the umemployed, and companies think this is a good way to pre-select people. Everybody wants an extraordinary employee, and one who has a job is extraordinary It will continue to evolve as the unemployed remain so for long until we do have a true underclass.
" Hap said...
ReplyDeleteDude, I don't know what your math skills are, but the debt was greater than 10T's when Obama hit office - his deficits have been gargantuan but at least part of it was the bank bailouts and stimuli to fix the econ that W helped sack"
I was quoting Obama's 'address to the nation' for the 1T number. If anyone was to round up that figure, he would. Obama did not quote mention his debt (why would he?) so I looked that up on the national debt clock.
The economy was doing find during George Bush's last term until Obama started campaigning. When Obama told everyone the economy was doing poorly (just as he is now) it crashed. The cause (not the effect) was Obama's whiny speeches to incite fear in people. Many times he outright lies about what is going on in the House and Senate. He is inciting panic again now. Obama's political agenda is ruining this country.
Ah, I see the disconnect. The national debt was above 10 trillion, the yearly deficit is/was about 1 trillion. That said, one of the reasons the deficit seemingly ballooned when Obama took office (remember, please, that TARP was passed under Bush and the stimulus was something like 1/3 tax cuts) is that Obama refused to run the wars off-budget. If he'd kept running them off-budget, funding them with emergency spending like Bush did, the deficit numbers would be lower, though the debt would be just as high. Funny, though, how tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit plan, and two wars apparently didn't cost anything until 2009.
ReplyDeleteI think the amazing thing to me is that politicians seem indifferent to the unemployment crisis. All job-related bills are blocked now and all we're talking about is debt, debt, debt.
ReplyDeleteJust for reference, a nice chart. Almost all spikes in government spending have been recession related.
ReplyDeleteThe CCB bill is horrifying. It caps spending at 15% of GDP. Where it's never been, so it means huge cuts in entitlements that we've already paid for. Balanced budgets sound good in theory but the ability to run a deficit is an advantage, like in a recession or during a national emergency.
Most of our deficit problem is related to the Bush tax cuts, which go away in 2013 if we do nothing half of it will go away.
http://motherjones.tumblr.com/post/8106527179/weve-been-feeling-kind-of-charty-lately-kevin
How we got the deficit with nice chart.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=3
@Milkshake...
ReplyDeleteHow does the former HR director have any influence over your new job search? Maybe if you put them down as a reference (note to you, stop)? In all of my job searches the previous HR department has never been involved, in any way, in my search. I would think that if the HR director is in fact making these statements there should be some recourse on your end.
@Anon, 5:22 pm...
I understand the acrimony to HR departments when it comes to RiF's; but I have never seen them so involved in the hiring process as you describe. I've worked at several companies/universities and all of our hiring has been handled within the department. The HR people help set up the on-line application and pay grades, but they have never filtered any applications (sometimes I wish they would). Nor have they ever 'selected' candidates for us to hire.
@Anon, 8:48 pm...
"The Cut Cap and Balance bill would have been passed last week if Obama hadn't thrown a temper tantrum that he wanted a blank check all the way through the 2012 elections."
If you actually think this would have passed the Senate your deluded. Obama has yet to ask for a "blank check". His plans have all included more spending cuts than the Republicans/Tea Partiers even asked for. Boehner (the new Tea Party puppet) keeps moving his end zone - even the Gang of 6's deal is no longer worthy of his time.
Interesting that this article appeared on the same day yours did....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/why-companies-wont-hire-the-unemployed/2640
At the risk of sounding trite, the US work culture is sick. The long-term unemployed, many of whom were hapless victims of their upper-management’s stupid decisions, are now treated like criminals or lepers when it comes to hiring. While people should be allowed to switch careers for the sake of better opportunities, non-headhunter/placement agency solicitation of the currently employed erodes what’s left of corporate loyalty and worker empathy. One political party speaks vaguely of the need for skilled (scientifically educated?) labor to ensure future US prosperity, whereas another insists upon continuing/extending tax benefits to so-called “job creators”. Yeah…creators…for jobs overseas!
ReplyDeleteI feel very fortunate to be employed at the moment, though I have been unemployed in the past. My suggestion to anyone who is unemployed is to find any kind of gainful employment whatsoever in the meantime. A long time ago I was unemployed for an extended period of time while looking for an "appropriate" job. I ended up going to a temp agency to get any sort of work I could. I was offered a job at a warehouse stocking items. I took the job but asked if there was anything I could do in the meantime, since it was the middle of the week and the the job would start the following Monday. So they got me a two day gig stocking paper at another warehouse. This work was far from where I saw myself as a bright, college-educated, "chemist", but it served a number of purposes while I looked for something better. I had come to realize that doing this low-paying menial labor would not define me, and that I really needed to get on with it, just get moving. I had to swallow my pride before I could reach this conclusion, but I was much better for it. I don't mean to suggest these same sentiments to anyone reading this. I only share my experience about how I felt since maybe it will help someone. All the same, I do suggest the same course of action to anyone who hasen't tried it. Of course I also understand that there can be many complicating factors, such as the possibility of forgoing unemployment insurance, which can perhaps make this route ultimately disadvantageous.
ReplyDeleteThe good times are over - forever. It's time to get busy reinventing yourselves or get busy retiring.
ReplyDeleteThe truth sucks but if you are the type to sit around bitching and pointing fingers I wouldn't hire you either!
@10:12
ReplyDeleteIt's that sick non-compassionate attitude that will bring labor riots and anarchists back to the streets in due time. Although I respect your cynicism and "hard truth", the lack empathy oozing from that statement, and many others, is part of the poison in society that will turn us against each other.
I mean I suppose I can accept your inevitability, but I would rather choose to think beyond it in the hopes that society doesn't resort to barbarism. It's great to address these problems, but we are lacking on positive solutions and visions, and maybe it's just that we have become way too cold to each other.
Has anyone seen this in the jobs they are applying for?
ReplyDeleteI am sure it happens but I have not seen it. This is the second time I have been unemployed in a year. My first round was in 1/10 to 7/1/10 and the second round began 6/1/11.
I have not had any recruiters refused to work with me because I am unemployed. Once or twice, I have seen one recruiter advertise a position saying that no med chem or pharm chem need apply. She had other job positions that did not carry this restriction.
By the way, jobs seen more plentiful this time around than in 2010.
@booooooya
ReplyDeleteUnions work by finding like-minded workers and agreeing to support one another in politically motivated actions which will hinder employers at their power base. This can include striking, demonstrations, lobbying, distributing literature, organizing sit-ins, and other forms of organized, intentional activities aimed at gaining political power for workers rights.
I think if chemists were to unionize, and have an actual impact, they would have to become global.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. It couldn't stay within a single nation. Employers are increasingly international, and so unions would also have to be.
ReplyDelete