Unemployed need not apply

[yllus]

The recruiter I worked with last year when I was looking for a change once said to me, "It really helps that you're employed right now. Companies always keep their best people and other companies know that." I can actually see the logic in it so it's hard for me to criticize.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

you know as well as I that when a business is forced to make layoffs they target those layoffs at the under performers first.

The few layoffs that I've witnessed or been involved with were I currently work this was the exact criteria that was used. The supervisors force ranked the workers and those that scored below a certain number were laid off.

 

[Zebo]

Employment is improving. I'm not just talking about the Unemployment Rate, I'm fully aware of its' variables, but the amount of new Jobs coming onto the Market. 192,000 for Feb.

You don't understand employment rate maybe you will Believe Fisher of Dallas FED
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110208.cfm

U.S. nonfarm payrolls fell by 8.75 million jobs from their peak in January 2008 to their trough in February 2010. Estimates are that the population of Americans of working age increased by 4.4 million during the same period, creating a shortfall of over 13 million jobs. Since February 2010, the shortfall has only gotten worse: Although employers have added approximately 1 million new jobs, the working-age population has increased by an additional 1.7 million.

 

[sandorski]

You don't understand employment rate maybe you will Believe Fisher of Dallas FED
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110208.cfm

lolwut? Was January 2008 and February 2011?

 

[Engineer]

The recruiter I worked with last year when I was looking for a change once said to me, "It really helps that you're employed right now. Companies always keep their best people and other companies know that." I can actually see the logic in it so it's hard for me to criticize.

I would tend to agree with the exception of "what about whole plant closures"?

My plant was closed in 2010 and offshored to Korea. Even though many of skilled trade machine builders were far, far better than the employs working on the equipment in the production plants. Was everyone cut in that plant closure the worst employees cut from the company? (hint: they were some of the best at what they did in the world - just not cheap enough. I'm laughing at the complaints that I've heard from the Korean equipment since we have been closed).

The biggest problem is the hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes that you get for a job now. But, by not looking at anyone that is unemployed, you're missing out on potentially qualified labor that could be had for very cheap and are hoping that you will find someone who is employed willing to jump ship to your company, which might not be what many employees are thinking right now in a poor economy.

 

[Doppel]

I would tend to agree with the exception of "what about whole plant closures"?

My plant was closed in 2010 and offshored to Korea. Even though many of skilled trade machine builders were far, far better than the employs working on the equipment in the production plants. Was everyone cut in that plant closure the worst employees cut from the company? (hint: they were some of the best at what they did in the world - just not cheap enough. I'm laughing at the complaints that I've heard from the Korean equipment since we have been closed).

The biggest problem is the hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes that you get for a job now. But, by not looking at anyone that is unemployed, you're missing out on potentially qualified labor that could be had for very cheap and are hoping that you will find someone who is employed willing to jump ship to your company, which might not be what many employees are thinking right now in a poor economy.

re plant closing you're talking about exceptions and there are a lot of them. I don't think laid off workers are massively worse than non, but all things equal--get a large enough pool of them--and some trends will emerge.

 

[Infohawk]

The recruiter I worked with last year when I was looking for a change once said to me, "It really helps that you're employed right now. Companies always keep their best people and other companies know that." I can actually see the logic in it so it's hard for me to criticize.

Of course you do because it's a self-serving view. One that makes you think you are one of the valuable people.

There are a lot of variables in employment. It's pretty common knowledge that politics and personality play a big role in who gets cut too. Most jobs can be done by many many people. Managers will often pick people they get along with or who they have things in common with.

Shouldn't be illegal but I wouldn't go so far as to assume it's smart or even reasonable. This is just a lazy method to cut down on the hard job of analyzing candidates. It's like how an average Ivy League student might be better than an average state school student, but there are plenty of jocks and legacies at Ivy Leagues who aren't as capable a the good state school students. Just blindly recruiting the Ivy league student would be dumb just like automatically going for the employed worker is dumb.

It would be nice to see some of these companies identified by name and all the unemployed people can make sure they don't get any of their business and only bad publicity.

The good news is that Jobs are starting to come back. The Bad News is that they'll continue to come back slowly.

We'll see, it sounds like Steve Jobs is sick again... wait you didn't mean Steve Jobs? Have you ever thought about learning to capitalize properly? That is the kind of thing that should be held against candidates.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Surely discriminating against unemployed is bad for their own business, right? Because the employed people already have a job and benefits, and they will be wanting better, while unemployed people will definitely be willing to settle for less and may well take just about anything?

 

[Engineer]

Surely discriminating against unemployed is bad for their own business, right? Because the employed people already have a job and benefits, and they will be wanting better, while unemployed people will definitely be willing to settle for less and may well take just about anything?

Some don't see it that way. I've talked to several employers and when they place ads for jobs, they have received over 500 applicants. Every single employer stated that, at most there were 10 or fewer people who were even in the ballpark of being qualified with one of the employers finally tossing every single resume in the trash after only one interview. People, wanting to keep unemployment, have to apply for so many jobs to keep it....and they are applying for anything and everything that comes along.

My current job was not advertised for this reason. It was spread around by word of mouth though industrial salesmen, who go everywhere and know who is available or who might be interested/qualified.

 

[Jhhnn]

The few layoffs that I've witnessed or been involved with were I currently work this was the exact criteria that was used. The supervisors force ranked the workers and those that scored below a certain number were laid off.

That's true in some cases. OTOH, executive decisions often target entire under performing divisions of the company for liquidation. And there's the macro economic overview, as well, with entire sectors of the economy having massive layoffs, as in construction. Skills are meaningless unless they're in demand, and that means all the skills in that sector, from engineering to finance to project management to skilled trades & laborers.

 

[WackyDan]

More often it is not.

Bull. In small companies, I would agree that those that deserve to be laid off, do indeed get laid off. I watched that when working for a 250 employee company. In three years we shrunk from 250 down to 36 employees. In the early rounds of layoffs, all the unprofessional, lazy pricks got let go.... Ultimately a lot of good people got let go too in the later rounds.

Fast forward several years... I'm working for a 20,000 employee company... Four years of layoffs, and I get selected early in 2010 to go. The irony is, I made "The President's Club" that year for over-achieving my targets... and still I was just a number and let go. I made that award 2 out of the 4 years I was there... which in my position, was rare in the company. At the end of the day they had too many redundant resources, and they kept the other guy that was working some pretty important internal projects and was assigned to our largest customer all along. Meh.

Fast forward again... to December of 2010... I'm hired by a near 400,000 employee company - paying me more, and the HUGE irony is I'm now competing directly against my former employer in some accounts, and I'm going to stomp all over them with my success.

So... In small companies, the first round of layoffs take out the shit people, but in larger companies you are indeed just a number. Hard work and success doesn't protect you though I do think it delays the inevitable.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Bull. In small companies, I would agree that those that deserve to be laid off, do indeed get laid off. I watched that when working for a 250 employee company. In three years we shrunk from 250 down to 36 employees. In the early rounds of layoffs, all the unprofessional, lazy pricks got let go.... Ultimately a lot of good people got let go too in the later rounds.

Fast forward several years... I'm working for a 20,000 employee company... Four years of layoffs, and I get selected early in 2010 to go. The irony is, I made "The President's Club" that year for over-achieving my targets... and still I was just a number and let go. I made that award 2 out of the 4 years I was there... which in my position, was rare in the company. At the end of the day they had too many redundant resources, and they kept the other guy that was working some pretty important internal projects and was assigned to our largest customer all along. Meh.

Fast forward again... to December of 2010... I'm hired by a near 400,000 employee company - paying me more, and the HUGE irony is I'm now competing directly against my former employer in some accounts, and I'm going to stomp all over them with my success.

So... In small companies, the first round of layoffs take out the shit people, but in larger companies you are indeed just a number. Hard work and success doesn't protect you though I do think it delays the inevitable.

This was my experience as well. I worked for a company that cut about 50% of the workforce over 18 months. The first 10% or so were people who definitely deserved it. By the end it was basically random.

 

[Doppel]

So... In small companies, the first round of layoffs take out the shit people, but in larger companies you are indeed just a number. Hard work and success doesn't protect you though I do think it delays the inevitable.

In your example yes but not always. When a large company lays people off the CEO is not picking names. It filters down to the low level so that managers are ultimately told to reduce headcount. And they know those who they're reducing, so they do have the ability to choose bad from good, even if that isn't always the case.

 

[manimal]

I lived trough downsizing in the 80s with the advent of computers in large numbers in the workforce and then again in the 90s when the middle management bubble got hit.


In small companies the fat gets cut out.. in larger ones the accountants run the show when it comes to who stays and who goes....

 

[BoberFett]

Bull. In small companies, I would agree that those that deserve to be laid off, do indeed get laid off. I watched that when working for a 250 employee company. In three years we shrunk from 250 down to 36 employees. In the early rounds of layoffs, all the unprofessional, lazy pricks got let go.... Ultimately a lot of good people got let go too in the later rounds.

That's just silly. Large companies have lots of people doing the same job and can afford to choose the best performers in any given position. In small businesses there are frequently many positions that are unique. When a small business has to downsize sometimes those positions are simply no longer necessary. At my last job I was the IT Director, so as the company shrank from 250 to 200 then 150 and finally 100 where it was when I was laid off, it made perfect sense to get rid of me despite the fact that there were "worse" employees. A company that's fighting just to survive doesn't need long term strategic positions like mine, they need immediate cost control. What are they going to do with someone like me? Have me stay on and answer phones in the call center on a six figure salary? When the president approached me about cutbacks in my department after I had squeezed every bit of savings I could out of monthly budget, I told her to let me go. My department was only three people under me at that point, and they needed the network admin and two programmers just to keep the company running day-to-day, so the only possible cutback was me. I took the axe and my guys got to keep their jobs. Of course the company is now down to about 50 people and are now filing Chapter 11, because the owners are a couple of assclowns with no idea how to run a business...

So in summary, if an employer doesn't want to hire a layoff that's fine, but if they think they're getting better employees that way then they're short sighted fools and a person would probably be better off not working for that company anyway.

 

[Patranus]

Why would I want to hire someone who has been out of the workforce for 1 to 2 years?

They have 1 to 2 years of training to catch up on.

 

[Engineer]

Why would I want to hire someone who has been out of the workforce for 1 to 2 years?

They have 1 to 2 years of training to catch up on.

Right, because EVERYONE on unemployment has been laid off for 1 to 2 years. We've had ZERO layoffs for a year or more, right (based on that comment)?

 

[Patranus]

Right, because EVERYONE on unemployment has been laid off for 1 to 2 years. We've had ZERO layoffs for a year or more, right (based on that comment)?

I am just saying that is the general idea behind postings like this.

Not saying it is good or bad, but that is the mindset.

Just like hiring a 28-37 year old woman. Wouldn't want to hire someone who is in their prime child bearing years.

 

[1prophet]

Employment is improving. I'm not just talking about the Unemployment Rate, I'm fully aware of its' variables, but the amount of new Jobs coming onto the Market. 192,000 for Feb.

What kind of jobs were those and do they make up for the higher paid with benefits jobs that are being lost?

 

[Patranus]

Employment is improving. I'm not just talking about the Unemployment Rate, I'm fully aware of its' variables, but the amount of new Jobs coming onto the Market. 192,000 for Feb.

Unemployment isn't improving. It only looks that way because the workforce is "shrinking"

 

[Engineer]

What kind of jobs were those and do they make up for the higher paid with benefits jobs that are being lost?

The wages (and I assume benefits) are far behind what they are replacing, sadly. A generation, coming up, that will be the first to have a lower standard of living.

 

[BoberFett]

The wages (and I assume benefits) are far behind what they are replacing, sadly. A generation, coming up, that will be the first to have a lower standard of living.

There's nothing sad about living within your means. What's sad is that the generation or two before them was living high on the hog with Uncle Sammy's magical credit card.

 

[Zebo]

What's funny sad is credit card to the tune of 4x usual per year doesn't even work anymore. Probably more like 6x if you include the FED's hidden bailouts I've profiled in other threads.

 

[1prophet]

There's nothing sad about living within your means. What's sad is that the generation or two before them was living high on the hog with Uncle Sammy's magical credit card.

Living within your means is easy to say, hard for most to do because the type of discipline required is lacking for most in an age where buy now pay later consumerism is rampant.


Perseverance, delayed gratification, sacrifice, is something that is easier instilled in a person when they are a young child, unfortunately immediate gratification, keeping up with Jones', buying things to impress your friends is par for the course today and hammered into people as soon as they are old enough to be capable of being manipulated by advertisers.


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/10.21/07-brainbattle.html

"Our emotional brain has a hard time imagining the future, even though our logical brain clearly sees the future consequences of our current actions," said Laibson, an economist in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences. "Our emotional brain wants to max out the credit card, order dessert, and smoke a cigarette. Our logical brain knows we should save for retirement, go for a jog, and quit smoking."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow_experiment

One of the most successful behavior experiments ever that shows how the ability of a child early in life to resist temptation and delay gratification affects the rest of their life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-sweet-lead-better-life.html#ixzz14YncZPwO

Professor Mischel's original research at California's Stanford University during the 1960s is regarded as one of the most successful behavioural experiments.
He put a marshmallow in front of the children and said they could eat it when he left the room.
But if they could wait for 20 minutes to have it, he said he would give them a second marshmallow.
He found that around a third of his subjects would grab the sweet immediately, a third would wait for his return to claim two marshmallows and the rest would try to wait but give up at varying times.
It was not until 14 years later, when his earliest subjects were leaving school, that the psychologist began to confirm a correlation between the test results and success in life.
The children who took the sweet straight away turned into teenagers who lacked self-esteem and experienced difficult relations with their peers, it was found.
Those who waited for a second marshmallow turned out to be more socially competent, self-assertive and academically successful.
The boys and girls who waited even scored an average of 210 points more in their school exams than those who didn't.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-sweet-lead-better-life.html#ixzz1FrIsy87d
​

 

[Paul98]

The recruiter I worked with last year when I was looking for a change once said to me, "It really helps that you're employed right now. Companies always keep their best people and other companies know that." I can actually see the logic in it so it's hard for me to criticize.

It would be nice if that was true, but it's not. Most of it is just who you know, or just luck of the draw. I have seen the exceptional and the dumbass have about the same chances to lose there job.