.
June 22nd, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Some companies only interested in applicants who already have jobs

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As if life isn't difficult enough for millions of unemployed Americans, check this out: Companies are increasingly interested in hiring only applicants who already have a job.

CNNMoney.com reports that some job postings have restrictions like "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed."

In some cases - the companies have removed these restrictions from their job postings after media outlets, like CNN Money, pressed them on it.

Other employers may not spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who is unemployed; but it's pretty much a given that they rule these candidates out immediately.

It's rather shocking that with the unemployment rate at almost 10 percent - that some companies are outright shutting the door on so many Americans.

One New Jersey human resources consultant says that when she suggests candidates for openings, often the first thing recruiters ask her is if the person currently has a job. If the answer is no, the candidate usually won't get an interview.

She says employers sometimes think the unemployed have been laid off for "performance issues," but that's a myth in a time of 10 percent unemployment. Lots of people are losing their jobs through no fault of their own.

Others suggest employers are ruling out the unemployed because they're overwhelmed with applications; in other words, weeding out the unemployed is a short-cut for them.

Sadly, none of this is against the law.

Here’s my question to you: What if some companies not interested in hiring unemployed?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Ann in Charleston, South Carolina writes:
I personally know a company with this policy. Their excuse is that they want to see the potential employee in action before hiring them. I think this is an area in which the media can do some good: make this unfair practice known to the public.

Mark in Boston writes:
Jack, All other things being equal, which doctor would you want performing your open heart surgery: the one that just performed one yesterday or the one that hasn't done one in two years? This is the disingenuous perspective of most companies. These are the same misguided, short-term, stock price driven companies that figured they could save 25% by shipping jobs to Mexico and China, only to lose 20% of their business due to workmanship and quality. The net effect is far greater than the 5%, just ask any state municipality that has lost those tax revenues in the past two decades and are paying out more unemployment insurance than they have in their history.

Nancy in Tennessee writes:
If companies will only hire people that already have a job, then there are a lot of people who are doomed. The government should pass some new equal opportunity laws that protect people from being discriminated against because they lost their job due to down-sizing.

Jackson in Rome, Georgia writes:
Speaking from experience, there are a lot of bad workers out there who have jobs and there are a lot of good workers out there who are unemployed. From a purely pragmatic point of view, wouldn't it be better to court the unemployed, who would probably agree to work for less money?

Caroline writes:
What happens if the H.R. dept. automatically throws out the resume that indicates the candidate is unemployed? That person STAYS unemployed. I have been unemployed for two years. No one will even look at me. I have noted directly on the resume that I lost my job because the office was closed. Doesn't matter to HR. I'm still deemed unemployed.

soundoff (171 Responses)
  1. Frustrated American

    Jack,
    I spent about 9 months in the unemployment line in Michigan when it was spiraling out of control. I know how it feels to be forced to take a job for much less than your education and experience would otherwise dictate. Our nation is in the midst of allowing the greatest form of discrimination since slavery and then the reverse discrimination of affirmative action. If a company is going to hold unemployment, with a good explanation, against an otherwise totally qualified applicant, then Americans everywhere need to know the name of that organization and we should execute a 100% boycott on any of their products and or services. They should also be forced into paying double their standard rate for unemployment insurance premiums. they should also be refused any form of tax relief, abatement or benefits. their products should be subject to a 500% tariff. If being exported or imported from a foreign land they should get that tariff TRIPLED or QUADRUPLED!
    If that sounds harsh....TOUGH CRAP. That is exactly how the Americans that are trying to get jobs feel!
    Wake up AMERICA. We need to take our nation back.

    One Frustrated American
    Boston,MA

    June 22, 2010 at 1:34 pm |
  2. Michael, Alexandria, VA

    Not surprising. This is why they put a credit in for hiring the long term unemployed. Then there's the problem of temping. I've been doing this for over two years at the same place.

    June 22, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
  3. Jimmy from Houston, TX

    It's an employers market and they can choose to hire whom they desire. It's always been a well known fact the you are more employable if you already have a job........the bad economy doesn't change that. Look at the bright side, if an employed person gets another job, that opens up a job elsewhere.

    June 22, 2010 at 1:49 pm |
  4. Sue - Los Angeles, CA

    Well that is until this congress and president pass a new bill making it illegal to hire someone who isn't on unemployment.

    June 22, 2010 at 1:52 pm |
  5. Ed from MD

    Eventually all the "grass is greener" prima donna types will find their way to those companies making green pasteurs for the unemployed elsewhere.

    June 22, 2010 at 1:53 pm |
  6. Russ in PA

    And what is your point? It's their right to choose whomever they wish, right? But I suppose with all the rules and regulations that abound in America, perhaps they aren't allowed to choose whomever they wish...

    June 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm |
  7. Joan

    Well, perhaps the Companies see some as having "initiatiave"...when the employed is taking an available job then their vacant job is available. Jump on it you who have not worked a day in 99 weeks. Be aggresive and show companies you want to work.
    Joan
    Mn

    June 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
  8. R

    If companies are really doing this then these companies are missing out on a lot of excellent employees and great minds.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
  9. Pete from Georgia

    With the enormous number of unemployed in all sectors of our society employers have become increasingly selective with new hires.
    They are looking for the best of the best, not settling for just a "warm body", so to speak.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:17 pm |
  10. Overby from Melbourne

    That's the way it's always been. As an employer, right or wrong, I always wanted the one that wanted to work for me instead of their current employer, rather than someone that was just looking for basically any job they could find.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:18 pm |
  11. Steve in Michigan

    This is an old issue. Somehow there is something wrong with YOU if you managed to "get unemployed." What I have found in my current job search is employers are less sensitive than they used to be about this issue. Back when the unemployment rate, here in West Michigan, was less than 1% ... there was NO EXCUSE to go without a job more than a few days. Now, things are different and in my job search I have found them to be much more understanding of that, than they were in the past.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
  12. Eugene Myers Flat, CA

    Jack, Any company that will not consider a person simply because they're unemployeed is only hurting themselves and probably won't be in business for long.
    And we're still waiting to hear Wolf sing Jack.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
  13. tom trapani, quito, ecuador

    Interesting conundrum. The logic of a preference for one already employed over one unemployed escapes me.

    One would assume a more important thus, higher priority ingredient in the hiring equation would be prior demonstrated ability to perform well the tasks required among other skills sets.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
  14. pat in michigan

    I believe that the days of hiring with the anticipation of increased business are gone.
    Lean manufacturing is the new Mantra. If the hiring of a new employee is not going to add value to the business model it will not occur.
    I also believe the wage whiplash effect is taking place as well. Until a clearer picture of a wage norm takes place then hiring will not occur either.
    Maybe the deflationionary spiral that has affected the housing market is driving wages lower as well.Why pay a worker 28 bucks an hour when you can hire at 14 and get the same work out of them.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:42 pm |
  15. wayne

    It's probably a company that you would not want to work for anyway. If there is this level of discrimination without even knowing why someone is unemployed, then there are things on within the company that are probably more sinister.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm |
  16. Peg from N.Y.

    What are they thinking?! People who are out of work need not be discriminated against, it is difficult enough to find a fair paying job!

    This is all wrong in every direction. It becomes increasingly clear every day~the unemployed are now being punished for losing jobs they had little to no control over losing.

    What a very sad and deafting state of affairs. This is not just wrong, it is unacceptable.

    June 22, 2010 at 2:51 pm |
  17. David R Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Well Jack that really is not new.Companies have been doing that for many decades as an unspoken policy.And it is alive and well to this day.That is why I tell people to get three or even four part times jobs
    if one has to to keep the string going.
    David

    June 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
  18. Ron Lambert

    Jack,

    Only hiring the employed sounds like the corporate logic of the GOP. Perhaps they would be willing to apologize to the companies currently being attacked by the media for not hiring the unemployed in favor of those that are already lucky enough to have employment. wouldnt want another shakedown.

    Ron
    Miami

    June 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
  19. Jim

    That is just bad business on their part. There are plenty of people in the unemployed ranks that can do the jobs they need, and are willing to do it for a reduced pay rate. There are people who just 'want' to work.

    This is just another excuse for some companies, especially High Tech, to say they cannot find employable U.S. people so they can push for more H1-B's. Some CEO is padding their Golden Parachute.

    As with immigration reform the issue is to enforce the current employment laws (doesn't this issue violate EOE) and provide a level playing field for people to work in.

    Jim
    Denver, CO

    June 22, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
  20. CRAIG R. MCNEES

    tampa, fl I always found that to be true, it is much easier to get a job when you already have one. I doesn't matter how much education you have, or talent, employers seem to think you are some how broken if you have let yourself become unemployed. As a college grad that couldn't even get a job mowing lawns just to have some pride in working rather than collecting welfare, I know how hard it is.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
  21. Stephanie

    What kind of since does that make...wouldn't you want to employee the unemployed?? What a shame...I think they should be saying "employeed need not apply"

    Stephanie – Jersey City, NJ

    June 22, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
  22. Pam, NYC

    I have one word for these companies - reprehensible. This country now has countless good people out of work due to no fault of their own. I want to repeat that - due to no fault of their own.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
  23. JENNA

    What if some companies not interested in hiring unemployed?

    IF? Not only that, Age Discrimination is alive and well.

    I think that this needs to be addressed in congress. If you only hire those with jobs and give no opportunity (jobs) to the unemployed then your company will be find. And if you only hire those younger than 40, you'll be fined, etc..

    Tax breaks given to those companies that hire those who are unemployed and those hiring people over 40 years old.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    June 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
  24. Michael H. in Albuquerque, NM

    It's kind of stupid, don't you think? Or, don't they think? An employed applicant has leverage that they can use to seek higher wages and benefits when applying for a new job. An unemployed applicant has no leverage, only desperation. The employer may then be in a better position to deal with the unemployed applicant. Somebody should do the math.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
  25. Lisa in GA

    Jack, this is absolutely not true... I have a job and and have been looking for a 2 nd job for 4 years.... and I still haven't found one! Tell me where do you get your statistics from again? They are soooooo wrong!

    June 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  26. Chris from NC

    I think the reason many companies are doing this is because they know that several who lost their jobs in the recession had been with companies 10 years or more. It's basically indirect age discrimination. And, unfortunately, they are getting away with it.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  27. Ken in New Baltimore

    That's their preogitive. Wasn't this country founded on "free enterprise"? I'd like to see the law that says, "You've got to hire the unemployed. Besides, Obama's hiring the unemployed for government jobs, i.e. triple counted Census Takers. In my old hometown, they laid off over 75 protective service (firemen, police, etc) and the Stimulus gave the City a check to hire 75 parttime bike path makers. Then they counted them as 75 new jobs. It's the Administrations stupidity that's turning business against them.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:29 pm |
  28. Ron in Indiana

    What kind of stupidity is happening in Corporate America when CEO's have decided a qualification for an available job is current employment. If a company refuses to hire an unemployed person, it makes me wonder what their motive is for keeping those unemployment figures up.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
  29. David in Raleigh, NC

    More of our politically correct problems in society.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
  30. Gregory Tripp, Mechanicsburg, PA

    There is nothing new under the sun. Think about it Jack. What did you do to get moved to the front of the termination line? It must have been something or you'd still have a job. In any case, as your prospective employer, the guy with a job always looks better than the bum without one. Life isn't fair, never was. That's just the way it is, human nature and all.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
  31. NANCY , Grand Ledge MI

    If companies only hire people who have jobs, they may have a valid point! Many people are working part-time and really would prefer a full-time job, but they are willing to work whatever they can get until that happens! The part-time work gives them a current work record, references, and recent experience. The jobs they leave will become available for those who remain unemployed! It's a good way to see who's really wants a job and who doesn't.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
  32. Mike in St. Paul

    That's the attitude this country has adopted. If you get laid off it was because of your performance. If you get sick and die it was because of your irresponsible life choices. It only goes one way, though. If I get laid off it was because my boss is incompetent or an illegal alien took my job and if I get sick and die it was because of the healthcare bill that kicks in in four years.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
  33. Jerry Jacksonville, Fl.

    There may be another applicant seeking a job in the near future and that would be General Mcchrystal and you may could add some of his senior staff. I could promise you if I were in charge they would all be looking for a job, my question is what is happening to our military, they are acting like a bunch of redneck drunks. Those of us who served in the military find it damn hard to believe that a general officer and his staff would talk about the President and senior white house officials. What a bunch of idiots, they deserve to be fired.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
  34. Dee in Woodstock GA

    Don't know how true this is.

    However, apparently the thousand or so companies to whom my husband has sent his resume have not (usually) even had the common decency to acknowledge his resume submission.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:40 pm |
  35. Gregory Tripp, Mechanicsburg, PA

    They also look at whether you've gone up or down in pay and job responsibilities. The reason for layoff or demotion is not relevant. Neither is longevity on the job except it can count against you as age related. Education can be a three edged blade too. Sometimes it knocks you out of the running because you're not qualified enough, you're too qualified, or your date of graduation gives away your age as too old (or too young). Trust me. HR/Personnel is looking for any reason to knock a candidate out of the running, and so would you if you had a few hundred applications for every open position. And all this is before they consider affirmative action. God have pitty on the over 50 WASP, because no one else will.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:42 pm |
  36. Jeff in E. Lyme, CT

    There's a much bigger problem that nobody's reporting. The United States has more "Convicts" percentage-wise than ever before in it's history. Not because people are commiting more crimes, but because Liars (Lawyers) rule our society. It costs roughly $20,000 to bring any minor infraction to trial (which most good workers canot afford), whether you're guilty or not and prosecuters. incentivised by "Conviction Percentage" are becoming more & more corrupt. So even if you're not guilty, and it will be easy to prove so in a trial, you are given the option of pleading guilty and being penalized in no way other than your record.........and the prosecuter gets a "Win". However, modern technology has made it incredibly easy & inexpensive to do background checks. Many law abiding citizens are being descriminated against wrongfully in the job market due to the corruption of others. It's time for a MAJOR change.

    June 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm |
  37. Philip a Canadian Observer

    My company, a sales division of a very large Japanese manufacturer has not hired in more than eight years, no one quits, no one has retired. Yet they receive more than 600 well qualified but unsolicited applications every month. If they hired, it would be someone from the competition, someone in the business, someone who can "bring it" from day one. If you are unemployed, you wouldn't get past "Security"

    June 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
  38. MNResident

    My company is currently hiring for a position to work along side of me in my office, and I was asked to review all of the resumes submitted and rate the candidates. Given that I personally had gaps in my employment history, I discounted the gaps in employment history and searched for just the job skills that were needed for the position we are filling. The candidates we chose to interview all had employment gaps listed, so from personal experience, it was a non issue....

    June 22, 2010 at 4:01 pm |
  39. Dale H - IL

    This is another area that needs the attention of lawmakers. They need to create a law that imposes a fine of the unemployment payroll tax rate applied to 100% of the payroll dollars on the entire company's payroll (over and above the existing cap) in the year that the violation occurred. That will stop this form of discrimination right in it's tracks. Employed people should get the nod over unemployed only based on qualifications, not whether or not they currently have a job. Employers must be held accountable to such new EEO laws and regulations, using the existing government people in place to deal with it. A true deficit reduction step.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm |
  40. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    It has always been easier to get a job if you already have one. You don’t have to explain why you were fired.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm |
  41. Allen in Hartwell GA

    Jack, for those of us at the lower end of the pecking order this has always been a problem. Glad to see the rest of society are joining the rat race.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
  42. Elizabeth in Los Angeles

    I lost a job through absolutely no fault of my own, back two years ago when I was 63. The companies I subsequently interviewed with didn't seem to mind that I was unemployed, but they sure minded that I was 63, which, as illegal and un-American as it is, is the grim reality.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:14 pm |
  43. Rob in Brooklyn

    Hasn't that always been the case. Companies always want to hire someone that's currently employed

    June 22, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
  44. Mark, Oklahoma City

    Well, Jack, maybe there's a good reason for that, like the person applying for the job is too old, too young, too black, too hispanic, too white, too fat, under qualified, over qualified, doesn't interview well, can't speak English, or the best one of all....during the interview, the employer heard something that they deemed a "red flag". Good thing Lincoln or Washington didn't have to "interview" for their jobs.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
  45. Adam Simi Valley, CA

    That is the choice of the employer assuming we have any freedoms left. Think about it. When companies did their downsizing, do you think they cut their rockstars first? Or do you think they cut those who were underperforming or average performers? When you are hiring people, do you take the first guy to show up or are you selective in your process and choose the person who is the best fit? Even though there may be millions out of work it doesn't mean an employer has one person worth hiring. If you are hiring at a nuclear reactor and the position prevents the plant from exploding are you going to take the first applicant you have, who may have been laid off several times already or are you going to try to lure an All-Star away from another nuclear reactor operation? The Free Market is sorting itself out. Leave it alone.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
  46. Phil in Port St Lucie, Florida

    Companies' and corporations' human resources departments AND various middle management personnel should not be considered as being "intelligent". Most of their decisions are based on their own reporting and results. Hiring an experienced individual is not considered as great as a newly minted (Cheaper) college grad. Having said that, if you're working and have excellent credit you are OBVISOUSLY a better worker than a poorly "laidoff worker".

    June 22, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
  47. Jackson from Rome, GA

    Speaking from experience, there are a lot of bad workers out there who have jobs and there are a lot of good workers out there who are unemployed. From a purely pragmatic point of view, wouldn't it be better to court the unemployed, who would probably agree to work for less money?

    June 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
  48. Lene', IL

    I suppose if someone who is employed is applying for another job then they are doing so because they see a better opportunity. Once they get hired, hopefully their vacancy will give someone unemployed a chance. It is a shame though that someone who may be highly qualified and out of work by no fault of their own would not be given an opportunity to work.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
  49. Richard, Kankakee, IL.

    this is dumb, all this does is to keep the employment level as they are, all it does is hurt the country, all those people with degrees coming out of college have no future, and those who have worked their whole life are cast away like an old shoe. Those of us with Masters and PH.D's, Doctorate become on the same level as everyone else, not valued by employers because we will not work for pennies on the dollar, when we live in a hundred dollar world!

    June 22, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
  50. Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    Jack, well, it probably couldn't be any worse than it is right now. Don't think it will last very long, if it is happening, because people who are presently employed are not going to move unless there are significant incentives. Big incentives cost money, and hiring entry level or part time employees is a much better way to meet emerging manpower requirements. "Churning" employees eventually results in a personnel requirement unfilled somewhere in the "mill", so someone, somewhere, has to hire from the unemployed pool. I think it ends being a non-issue.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
  51. Bob Spads

    More wisdom from our "captains of Industry" that put us into this mess to begin with. What a bunch of arrogant jerks. There is no ethics to these people. I am convinced that they must be controlled with the iron fist of government poised above their heads like a sword of Damocles.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:44 pm |
  52. Jane Krummel

    Jack, these are the companies that obviously didn't listen to what Rand Paul said about what the unemployed need to the to stimulate the economy – accept jobs at a much lower rate than they were at before. Otherwise how on earth will all those poor CEO's be able to get those big bonuses and high salaries????

    Or maybe they believe the GOP propaganda that says people who are unemployed really don't want to work.

    We sure have a bunch of winners running things.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
  53. Sheri

    This is so unfair. On Dec 19, 2008, during my 5 month evaluation, the owners of the company I worked for told me that, "I can sleep at night knowing that commissions are in your capable hands.", and received my second merit increase in five months. During my first week back after Christmas, my husband had a heart attack resulting in a six-way bypass so I took a week off. Granted, it wasn't the most convenient time for the company but I hadn't planned it. Three days after I came back to work, I was terminated for causing a disruption in the work flow. Explain to me how this was just and why I should be punished by prospective employers because I am no longer employed. I have four associates degrees, more than 15 years experience in accounting and have been looking for work for over a year and a half.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
  54. Greg in Cabot, AR

    I have been looking for work for 9 months, I don't think i would want to work for a company that is so short sighted and narrow minded to assume that being unemployed is some sort of disability.

    I am an experienced professional that worked in a department with 4 others and when upper management decided on a 25% reduction of force, someone had to go and seniority was the deciding factor.

    THEIR LOSS if they pass on me in favor of someone that is so dissatisfied with their current job that they are willing to change employers in this crummy job market.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
  55. Kevin in CA

    It's a dog eat dog world, and if you can hire your competitors employees, that is just good business strategy. After all, corporations are chartered to mainly do one thing – make money.

    June 22, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
  56. ZionMari

    Interesting. IF you are unemployed and have been sitting around for the last 6 months of so, it sends a message to would be employers that you are not........ a hard worker.

    Jobs are here, but not for those who are not willing to work and work hard!

    June 22, 2010 at 4:54 pm |
  57. Maria

    What? What? A company doesn't want to hire me because I don't already have a job? Companies have always wanted job applicants to explain long spaces of unemployment but as a former job recruiter I never was instructed to rule out people who didn't have a job. What craziness is this? Propspective employers, theoretically, shouldn't even know you are already employed, unless they approached you for a specific position. Now they want to know if you are unemployed when you apply for work with their company. The inmates are truly running this asylum!

    Maria

    Brunswick,MD

    June 22, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  58. Annie, Atlanta

    There's nothing we can do. Corporations are in charge. In the long term we vote out congress critters that are obviously corporate owned. Joe "Bob" Barton would be one of those critters.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  59. Alex in Gig Harbor, WA

    It is an amazing hiring criterion in today's economy with so many unemployed looking for work. How do the unemployed get back into the game if this practice expands? Assuming every unemployed person was let go for poor performance is insane.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  60. Rick Medina,OH

    Jack,

    This is crazy. It is illegal to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc., but OK to discriminate based on employment status. In many cases this is actually age discrimination, since older workers have a difficult time re-establishing themselves. As they say ... there ought to be a law.

    Rick,
    Medina,OH

    June 22, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  61. Loren, Chicago

    I don't get this one. Maybe that's what took me five years to find a permanent position after getting let go, but it certainly is short-sighted. I graduated top of my class and orked for world class employers on signifcant projects. If the key criteria is my employment status, then what these employers are looking for is mediocrity – do enough not to get laid off, make no waves. No wonder U.S. business is in trouble.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  62. Sly, Alpena, Michigan

    If it's true, it's a damn shame that American Companies are doing this to their own Citizens, but, like you said Jack, "None of this is against the law."

    June 22, 2010 at 5:12 pm |
  63. Dennis north Carolina

    no one shouldwork for these companies.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
  64. Dave

    Who'd you rather hire? The professional that lost his job and sat on unemployment for 2 years or the professional that lost his job but was willing to work at a gas station, fast food place, or in sales until something better came along? Which one shows more potential? Which one has more desire to work?
    Yeah, at first glance, it seems like an odd restriction with record unemployment, but it is a good tool to weed out the truelly motivated from the rest of the pack.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
  65. Lori - PA

    Jack,

    I'm among the many people currently unemployed. Hearing the news that some companies won't hire anyone that's currently unemployed almost leaves me speechless. Those companies should be ashamed of themselves.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  66. Norm

    Companies over the last two decades have been especially cruel. They have outsourced, treated people less than human, increased rules, burdened people with unreasonable resume demands and have talked down to people like dirt.

    A few companies have continued to be nice to employees by encouraging training through opportunity, generous grants and donations. Some have treated workers with great deference and respect. These companies are in the minority.

    The employers who have relied heavily on websites, on-line applications and third-party evaluations and measurements have harmed society the most. The pain has been "out-of-sight, out-of-mind, " neat and sanitary through hiring that has been the most underhanded and cruel of all.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  67. Tommy TBones Cramer Chicago, IL

    I'm trying to add people to my staff and I'm getting no one to respond. I've been in business for 11 years as a one man shop and now when I want to expand I can't get people to apply. Not even people who mare unemployed. Sure wish I had the problem of turning away unemployed people.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  68. Richard Fairview, Texas

    I don't have a problem with it. A working person most probably has undergone background checks already and makes vetting them easier and more cost effective. With so many people unemployed now employers can be choosier.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  69. Ed from California

    The EEOC won't allow it. It's called Terms and Conditions of Employment. Basically, any employer can't setup their own term's or conditions of employment, however small. All employers have to follow the federal EEOC guidelines in hiring (LEGAL) help.

    The time is now for the Union's to start organizing these outrageous companies. Can you imagine working for this idiot company? Those employees/company might be easy to organize.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  70. Ralph Spyer

    As the ww2German U boat sailors would say in 1944 the happy times are over. Well their will be more Americans working part time with out pensions or welfare than with. The good and the best of times are gone 'Thank Wallmart.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  71. Delia, Katy, TX

    The unemployed should be the first to be considered. I hope Obama's stimulus to employers for hiring people doesn't allow this. Employing employed people doesn't help the economy at all! What's worse is the longer people are unemployed the worse their credit looks. In other words, there's other strikes against the unemployed.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  72. Kyle Irvine, CA

    Then the unemployed stay unemployed until the economy gets better.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  73. Jason

    The unfortunate thing is that this has been going on for decades. Add this also to the companies who have decided to make it a practice of judging one's work ethics on an individuals credit rating during these hard times. When it is all said and done it is mere proof of how as Americans we have lost control of our freedom and rights and blindly sat by as corporate america continues to strip us of everything. If we are going to fix unemployment we need to start first with the ridiculous hiring practices of these companies who helped contribute to our unemployment rate.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  74. Gigi Oregon

    It's a sad cut throat world that corporate America has created.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  75. Gretchen

    If companies are short-cutting their hiring processes to consider only the employed, not only are they missing quality candidates who WILL work and excellently at that (hunger & bills are amazing motivators), but they are showing themselves to be elitist and unwilling to help this country and economy. I would wager a guess that these companies are the ones who are outsourcing good jobs overseas as well, furthering the unemployment rate in the US for tax breaks.
    This is the sad reality of capitalism - so bring back the 'mom&pop' businesses! Corporate America is hard-hearted and selfish.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:43 pm |
  76. honest john in vermont

    Well jack it is a shame because many of the unemployed would make great employees.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  77. Nancy, Tennessee

    If companies will only hire people that already have a job, then there are a lot of people who are doomed. The government should pass some new equal opportunity laws that protect people from being discriminated against because they lost their job due to down-sizing or as some companies now call it right-sizing. The American people are not for more government, but in some cases the only way we get fair treatment for everyone is to impose laws to get companies to do the right thing.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  78. Mark from Boston

    Jack,

    All other things being equal, which doctor would you want performing your open heart surgery. the one that just performed one yesterday or the one that hasn't done one in two years?

    This is the disingenuous perspective of most companies. These are the same misguided, short-term, stock price driven companies that figured they could save 25% by shipping jobs to Mexico and China, only to lose 20% of their business due to workmanship and quality. The net affect is far greater than the 5%, just ask any state municipality that has lost those tax revenues in the past two decades and are paying out more unemployment insurance than they have in their history.

    The pie has gotten smaller and the CEO wants a larger slice.

    Welcome to the "New Normal"

    June 22, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  79. Ann from Charleston SC

    I personally know a company with this policy. Their excuse is that they want to see the potential employee in action before hiring them. I think this is an area in which the media can do some good – make this unfair practice known to the public.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  80. jerry

    thats nice. when my unemployment runs out next month we can live on cat food. do these clowns not understand that we unemployed actually purchase their products, or services? i need and want a job so i can afford their cheap chinese made garbage that breaks after the warranty expires.

    June 22, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  81. Weldon from Canada

    Have you ever noticed that the top salaried jobs are held by the incompetent who make the stupid decisions that they do. I worked for a company whose motto was "THINK". They have some of the most incompetent people that you can find but are still working full time. Maybe it is time to reTHINK and hire those who would be more competent than the employees they have now.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  82. Tom in Austin,Tx.

    Let's see if this summary is anywhere near correct: Many employers will not hire the unemployed, yet Congress will not extend unemployment benefits because they don't want those folks who are out of a job to get too comfy receiving government aid? To top it all off, Congress STILL can't see the obvious correlation between their passing stupid laws that encourage companies to send U.S. jobs overseas and our high unemployment rates. I wonder if our lawmakers will sit up and take notice when we really are a Third World country-which shouldn't take much longer.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  83. Antonio from Washington D.C.

    Getting "the hook-up" never hurt the unemployed. Shoot, if I was broke as a joke, then I would be begging people to the point they get agitated enough to help me for once!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
  84. Gregory Tripp, Mechanicsburg, PA

    There is nothing new under the sun. Think about it Jack. What did you do to get moved to the front of the termination line? It must have been something or you'd still have a job. In any case, as your prospective employer, the guy with a job always looks better than the guy without one. Life isn't fair, never was. That's just the way it is, human nature and all. They also look at whether you've gone up or down in pay and job responsibilities. The reason for layoff or demotion is not necessarily relevant. Neither is longevity on the job except it can count against you as age related. Education can be a three edged blade too. Sometimes it knocks you out of the running because you're not qualified enough, you're too qualified, or your date of graduation gives away your age as too old (or too young). Trust me. HR/Personnel is looking for any reason to knock a candidate out of the running, and so would you if you had a few hundred applications for every open position. And all this is before they consider affirmative action. God have pity on the over 50 WASP, because no one else will.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:07 pm |
  85. Michael Armstrong Sr. Tx.

    The only people that already have jobs that would consist mostly of illegal Mexicans .

    June 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
  86. Alex in wisconsin

    Then its just another example of Big business cutting corners, saving time, money and effort and screwing the American people in the process. Jobs are leaving because a majority of Americans want higher standards in the workplace and in terms of the products. It is great business for companies to go overseas where their products can kill people while underpaying workers without Big Government interfering. That money obviously fits better in the pockets of CEOs than it does creating jobs for unemployed Americans.News like this can only mean one thing, time to blame President Obama.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  87. andrey

    The military is alway hiring.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  88. Casey (Cookeville, TN)

    Then it will cripple the US economy. This recovery depends on people getting back to work. If unemployment stays at 10% and above, the country will sink back to the days of the dust bowl and the soup kitchen.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  89. Robert

    They probly want to pay no money to the law abiding american ,and why would they when the government is allowing illegals to go take a jobs away from legal citizens and drive the wages down–temp jobs are no good–it just pays for the gas to get to work,,

    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  90. Angela Savage Austin

    Another question for you Jack is...How does this affect the polls and numbers to distinquish if the economy is improving and is it a political move to sabatage those numbers?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  91. Karl from SF, CA

    Ah yes, corporate America. That scum on the bottom of the barrel. Since most companies are owned by Republicans, it fits right in with the rest of the Party of NO. No jobs for the unemployed. It could make Obama look good and we can’t have that, can we? If there were a list of these companies, I’d make sure I didn’t give then a dime of my business. Obviously, legal isn’t always ethical, especially for Republicans.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  92. Colin

    Two words: "surplus population."

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  93. Kathryn

    Besides being unconscionable, this stupid and heartless policy deprives businesses of potentially outstanding and experienced employees. Not only that, if it became widespread, it could create a permanent underclass where there were once middle-class taxpayers. It's insane!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  94. Ager50 Toronto

    Only in corporate Anerica.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  95. tom

    It is good, Jack. Why are so many unemployed? Skip the safety net of unemployment insurance and accept a job with same or less payment! You will never be unemployed if you are truly interested in work. This is America.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  96. steve - virginia beach

    The actual total percentage of unemployed is 16% with an additional 17% working part time because they can't find full-time work. Rampant outsourcing, insourcing, hiring of illegal aliens, and now refusing to hire the unemployed sadly gives new meaning to the term "American corporation". Nothing at all American about them. We need a comprehensive list of such companies so we can boycott them.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  97. Nick Gignac

    Well my question is this: How does this affect recent college graduates? Does this make it even harder for those of us who already can't find a job due to lack of experience? If these employment restrictions apply to us as well, it could be a long time before recent grads have any chance of finding a job....

    June 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  98. 2 million foreign workers

    What about the 2 million foreign workers from India, how come in this day of Immigration debate isnt anyone concerned with all these foreigners taking high paying American jobs while 20 Million of our fellow citizens remain out of work???

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  99. Andrea

    Like the ranks of the many uninsured/uninsurable...the ranks of the unemployed/unemployable will swell until all that is left are unemployed persons dying in the streets and flooding our public healthcare system.
    A free market system is awesome? Isn't it?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  100. Jean Posell

    Santa Clarita, CA
    It has always been easier to get a job if you are employed. Employers view employed applicants as more desirable and less likely to have problems in the workplace.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  101. Richard Fairview, Texas

    Jack an employer does not have to give a reason as to why they do not hire someone and never did. This is nothing new just a slight twist because so many people are standing in line looking for the same job. Employers can afford to be choosy.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  102. docb

    Jack,
    What the hell is the reason.. A shortcut-really! That really helps the nation and the employment issues...Where is the humanity-Oh, forgot these are corporations-Corporate personhoods have no humanity–thank you roberts court! This is definitely discrimination-if not anti American –the ACLU will be on this in a heartbeat!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  103. Jason, koloa hi

    The corporate mentality will be the downfall of modern society. Not wanting to hire unemployed people was probably a decision made by an out of touch CEO and board of directors. Probably by the same guys who started the computer generated schedule at the corporation I work for that does not take into consideration the times I need to spend with my kids and makes it impossible to switch shifts. But if a complain I may become one of the unemployed who won't ever get hired again. Too few who are too greedy have too much power over too many.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  104. Nick Gignac

    Well my question is this: How does this affect recent college graduates? Does this make it even harder for those of us who already can't find a job due to lack of experience? If these employment restrictions apply to us as well, it could be a long time before recent grads have any chance of finding a job....Nick from Corpus Christi, Tx

    June 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  105. John from MO

    I think the real problem facing unemployed Americans is that we've lost about 5% of our jobs thanks to technology. We can do the same or more with less people. I don't think we will ever get those jobs back. We may have to live with 10% unemployment. I feel badly for those people who lost their jobs. Keep the faith.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  106. B

    This is just ridiculous, and it's disgusting that such discrimination is even allowed. Most of the unemployed are in their current position because of fat cat companies "downsizing", which is just a fancy word for prioritizing profit over people. I could list at least 5 personal friends off hand who are unemployed that have been turned away from jobs for this very reason. They are capable, intelligent, and hard-working, but absurd discrimination like this prevents them from getting employment. The most ironic part of all of this is that a few years down the road when the unemployment rate is only getting worst, people will be quick to judge someone like President Obama or the Democrats instead of the crooked companies that enforce these backwards policies and create the problems in the first place.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  107. Mandy Dalton

    You folks at CNN are just discovering this? Hate to tell you this Jack, but you should also check with the personnel department of CNN. I can tell you that they and the other major broadcast news outlets, have the SAME policy. Like Dave Matthews says "Look into the mirror my friends."

    This has been corporate policy for many companies for the last 30 years.

    Oh, and while your at it... Age and Sex discrimination are against the law. If you look at half of the ads on Craigslist employment in Washington DC you will find the word "young" in description, or perfect for "stay at home moms."

    June 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  108. John Pampillonia

    List these Companies as undesireable .... How many excellent potential employees will be overlooked due to this practice.... Maybe it's time for these Companies to give a good look at their own Human Resource Departments and decide whether they need the people that make these unwise and unfair employment practices ....

    JP Sea Cliff, NY

    June 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  109. Solitude

    "You already know the answer jack. Seriously? Who would you employ? 'When you fill in a work sheet, you had better tell the truth. When you fill in an application you also had better tell the truth, because any Manpower for any business will contact your last employer, and if you lied on your aplication? How the hell can you expect to be given an interview? I could give you so many instancies, but it would not give any bite to this blog."

    June 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  110. Ken in NC

    Those employers will miss out on a lot of good qualified potential employees. It also insures that your question yesterday about China overtaking us in mfg. will take place quicker.

    Like Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does">

    June 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  111. Marcus in Greensboro, NC

    This is sad, but true. They are not hiring people with education either. Companies are doing whatever they can to cut costs and raise profits, because they are not able to post profits by revenue alone. Everyone is doing a balancing act to look like they are doing better. The Census helped the unemployment numbers temporarily, companies hire temps because they do not have to pay benefits for them, companies exclude the unemployed because it's more cost-effective to have temps and part time workers, and there is all kinds of damage control for everything that is going on in the Gulf. Companies need to stop looking for these short-term fixes, and start investing in this country. If they hired people here, they could create revenue instead of sending jobs overseas to give the illusion of profits.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  112. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    I guess in some ways this is not news as prejudice does exist in regards to one's status of unemployment. But in time of 10% unemployment as you have expressed; then employers need to give people the job opportunity based on their work experience and interview of course and not on their current work status. If it is not against the law to not even consider an umployed person for a job then it should be as it is purely discrimination and judgmental!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  113. Caroline Rado

    What happens if the HR depts automatically throw out the resume that indicates the candidate is unemployed?
    That person STAYS unemployed.

    I have been unemployed for two years. No one will even look at me.
    I have noted directly on the resume that I lost my job because the office was closed. Doesn't matter to HR.
    I'm still deemed unemployed.

    Will I ever be employed again?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
  114. Unemployed Top Performer

    These so-called HR "Professionals" are doing as much damage to the economy as the gulf oil spill, and in my opinion, are more out of touch with reality than the dubious BP executives. This is absolutely absurd with the unemployment figures as high as they are. Maybe all the HR "Professionals" should be fired for incompetence. Let them find work after they've truly been let go for performance issues.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  115. dawn

    How dum? Am i to understand that all laid off employees who were laid of are low performers? So then many companies lied when they said they had to lay off because of the sluggish economy . Are people really not thinking ?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  116. Laurean

    I have been unemployed for the last two months and the frustration of sending out resumes, contacting employers and essentially getting the run-around is just disgusting! Now you're telling me that some companies aren't interested in hiring the unemployed? So where can people get jobs? How are we supposed to make a living, pay bills?? This is just another way for those in power to control those who don't have any.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  117. Pat

    Why not? Those who have nothing continue to have nothing – even though they did NOTHING to loose the good job they had!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  118. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    I guess in some ways this is not news as prejudice does exist in regards to one's status of unemployment. But in time of 10% unemployment as you have expressed; then employers need to give people the job opportunity based on their work experience and interview of course and not on their current work status. If it is not against the law to not even consider an unemployed person for a job then it should be as it is purely discrimination and judgmental!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  119. John Walsh

    Jack: ...not only will the "rich get richer, and the poor get poorer", but the wealth of skilled talent passed over in such a short-sighted hiring
    policy will leave the U.S. in the technology dust as other countries use
    their full range of trades and trained workers to advance.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  120. Arnold Mi

    This is another example of:
    [1] Greedy employers trying to "Capitalize" on the high unemployment by hiring employees who they don't have to carry any benefits on since they are receiving benefits from their other employer.
    [2] Employers trying to replace their existing employees by hiring new employees as part time, testing as on the "job employees", and then keeping the "cream of the crop"
    [3] Socialists who are tired of paying benefits [pensions & health care} that could be provided by Social Security and Medicare.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  121. J. Jacobs

    This news report tells us that the job market is more stagnant than we know. If the economy growth creates more jobs than there are people employed- what then. This "fruit basket turnover" mentality is really a scary thing. There are excellent talents out there among the unemployed. It's those marginal workers who keep their resume circulating since many of them are only a performance review from being unemployed themselves.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  122. Steve

    Hey Jack:

    I've been unemployed for over 3-years. I had over 14-years of solid work experience, and decided to take a voluntary severance package just before the economy went south. I never received a negative performance evaluation from the company I voluntarily left. I do not understand American corporate mentality of excluding people not working full-time. I wonder what else is on their list for excluding potentially great candidates: gender, weight, age, etc.??!!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  123. Jonathan

    Hi Jack,

    It's very simple. Those that run these companies are completely out of touch with mainstream. When asked, I'll bet money that they would say "What Recession?"

    They don't realize that their selfish actions in refusing able-bodied, experienced, educated, and hard-working Americans a chance at redemption is a crime all of it's own.

    They should be made to reread Steinbeck's greatest works so they can finally understand how the rest of America feels.

    -Jonathan in Albany, NY

    June 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  124. steve - virginia beach

    I want democrats out of office as badly as anyone but we should challange other candidates to tell us what about these companies is American before voting for them and what their action plan is for the 33% of us who are either unemployed or underemployed.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  125. P. Edward Murray

    Jack,

    5 years ago, my company decided to downsize our office, sell us and then outsource us.

    I think you will understand why I tell folks not to buy anything from this Non American manufacturer!

    Luckily, I have family and have been available to see one of my parents through knee surgery and cancer but I wonder what things will be like when I might be able to re-enter the workforce?

    Will there be any jobs? I don't know.

    If companies don't want to hire the unemployed there will be a moment in time when they will start to feel the heat...

    Time to put these idiots in JAIL!

    Thanks Jack,

    Ed Murray
    Yardley (suburban Philadelphia) PA

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  126. Amy Jade

    This is really bad, actually I heard about this practice about three weeks ago. I have to ask; What does this do for students needing summer jobs? How about graduates just out of college and others who are attending school to recieve a degree because we cannot find jobs anymore in our old field? I am 38 and unemployed and attending computer technology classes for an Associates' degree online. What will this do for me? My previous job was customer service/ retail cashier and there are NO JOBS for these positions at all right now because these places are working with the bare bones for customer service because there are less people butying!!!! Now if they don't hire the unemployed who the heck do they think will be buying? Nobody. This is why the country and Capatilism is an EPIC FAIL!!!!!!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  127. Sophia

    Then the unemployed think outside the box, like I did, and create their own opportunity. I used to be IT but between the commute and much non-sense that goes on the in the IT world, I left it... just as the economy took a downturn. I soon realized exactly what you have just mentioned here – employers are overwhelmed and the unemployed is quickly filed in "13"
    Today, I work from home and help people. It is much more fullfilling and since I don't have to worry about transportation, my car and my pocket are much healthier.
    The unemployed should stop looking for traditional employment. Stop and think. What do you have to offer? Have you noticed a need that is not being met by either private nor public sector? Is there anything you always wanted to do? Do you have a hobby that makes you happy?
    Thousands are still looking for traditional employment but there are thousands more who have taken the current crisis as an opportunity to re-invent themselves.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  128. Sandy Hudson

    I am unemployed for a year and a half now. I am doomed, I have lost everything I have 3 weeks of unemployment. I have filed out and applied for everything from fast food to management. I have not had one single phone call in a year and half. I got a bite last week, pass all assessments with flying colors and then nothing, they must have realized I was not currently working. I have lots of experience but can not find a job. Once my unemployment is gone. so will my car, I can no long afford the payments. Once the car is gone my transportation is gone. I live in a rueal town with no public tranportation. I have not saving, I dont own my home I have nothing and will be homeless with a couple months. I dont know what to do. Things have never been so bad. I would scrub toliets if someone just please give me a job I dont care there isnt anything left. I have started selling off all my property a few weeks ago. I figure I wont have a home so why keep it. This computer is next.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  129. Lawrence S. Marley, MSW

    After a 25+ year professional career in Savannah, Georgia I am experiencing 4 barriers to obtaining face-to-face interviews: Georgia's unemployment rate (10.2%), being a social worker in the dreaded 55 – 60 age range, the impersonal web-site HR process and being unemployed. 15 million unemployed in the U.S. ... about the size of NYC & Tokyo combined.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  130. Laurean Miami, FL

    I have been unemployed for the last two months and the frustration of sending out resumes, contacting employers and essentially getting the run-around is just disgusting! Now you're telling me that some companies aren't interested in hiring the unemployed? So where can people get jobs? How are we supposed to make a living, pay bills?? This is just another way for those in power to control those who don't have any.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  131. wethepeople

    Employers are actualy hurting themselfs because the more people that apply for unemployement benefits the more taxes the state has to pay, inturn the more taxes companies will pay. This story is true and this is actualy is going. The true fact is that companies who laid off workers for what ever reason, laid off workers that they did not like (for what ever reason). This is where the problem is.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  132. david

    we could lie! our society is filling up with hippocrits.those that say "survival of the fittest while back stabbing compassion... if we lie and act like we dont need it maybe then a job will present itself..its like the bank wont give you a loan unless you dont need it!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  133. Anne from Houston

    Great! My husband was laid off almost a year ago due to a combination of a bad marketing decision at HDQ and outsourcing to SE Asia. He has been applying for jobs all along without a nibble. We no longer have health insurance and I have SLE. This guy worked his way up from being a warehouse hump to a CAD specialist in the Engineering Dept in 15 years. He's 48 years old. And now he won't be considered because some idiots in human resources think he was laid off for cause? Thanks you idiots for YOUR death panel cause it's 4 years until I can get covered with my pre-existing condition, and it's highly likely I'll have a fatal crisis before then. Thanks you idiots for proving that that connections matter more than competence in getting a job - cause you are ALL certifiably as dumb as they come!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  134. Stephen Charchuk

    One would think that companies would want to hire the unemployed since they're desperate for a job and would be willing to work for less than someone who is already employed since one would have to pay them more to leave their current job.....

    Maybe the unemployed Americans should apply for H1B visas?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  135. Ken

    I am currently unemployed due to the downsizing at time of selling of the company I worked for, for 10 years and helped bring their medical software up to date. I will not apply to any company that discriminates against hiring the unemployed, and find that type of action to be as hazardous and detrimental as hiring illegal aliens. Atlanta job market literally sucks the big one. Although I am trained to deal with hospitals and computers, I would take any job at this point...is anyone hiring?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  136. Samuel

    This is a blessing in disguise. This is the New America! This is why I suggest to most younger college graduates to learn a new language and "internationalize" their resume. Don't wait! Don't get stuck! Never depend on the New America. If there is an opportunity for you, take it, if not, then don't stress, go "abroad" to work and don't turn back. You cannot count on working in the U.S. anymore. In fact, the U.S. is a place for having your own business and doing the hiring. The future is extraction, make the money in the U.S. but don't live in the U.S. I'm American and I speak several languages but I'll never depend on the U.S. for my only pay check. Thank God for passports! I love using mine. The future of the American workforce is beyond the borders. That's the New America. Live with it, or die from it.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  137. Jeff

    This sounds like a case of a dog who chews on its own tail. If you can't bring the unemployment rate down who is going to spend to get this economy out of the ditch? You would think companies would be doing everything they could to hire people to get them to buy their goods and services. It just goes to show you how a irrational and warped society we have become.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  138. Daniel

    Jack, You've hit an issue with which I have much passion about. It I am an HR Mgr & IT Recruiter with 14 years experience. Most companies shun the following: Unemployed, Older workers & minorities. I've been witness to it for my whole career. I have never been allowed to speak out. So I am now. Companies hide behind the "not qulaified" or "does not meet requirements" period. It's hard to pin them on discrimination, but it happens daily across the board in all industries on a daily basis. You will not find any HR professional admit that, and if you investigate it, you will find no story, becuase no one will admit to it. That is the real situation in this country. Additionally, employers look at the unemployed as loders and they won't hire losers regardless of the candidates situation. I have been in each situation when we "passed on the forementioned candidates". They were people who would have helped the company. I'd like to challenge you to speak with SHRM or it's local memberships across the country. Their answer will be: "There is no discrimination of any applicants from out members. It's an all out lie!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  139. Jamie

    After earning my college degree, I have been applying for numerous positions. A potential employer initiated a phone interview. Once the interviewer discovered I was unemployed, there was an immediate urge to end the phone interview. Although I was told that I was very well qualified for this position, I never received a call back for a second interview. I am still unemployed after 8 months.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  140. chris brown fl

    i think it's just another example of america today the haves and the have nots i think they should have their tax credits taken away we lose our jobs to foreign nationals then lose out to the people that have them

    June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  141. Nelson Perkinson

    Jack, We might be witnessing some projection here. When a department in a large corporation needs to downsize by a couple of employees, you can bet those with attendance, health or other problems will be among those first to go. When hiring time comes around, the HR folks might be assuming others have done the same and are avoiding possible problems.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  142. steve - virginia beach

    I'm for lower taxes but maybe we need to keep raising unemployment taxes until these companies change their minds.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  143. JimGreen, Seguin, TX www.Inclusivism.org

    What it means Jack is that the legislative method our government is using [HR 2847] to grease the palms of our corporations so they will hire our way out of our unemployment crisis isn't working – and maybe in 10 years we may be back to 5% unemployment! We need fresh eyes to look at the problem.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  144. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    It's a match made in heaven for an employer to hire someone whose already employed especially experienced in the opening they have to offer. It offers limited training time, which is costly and the possibility to bringing something new to the company. Furthermore, a person may look good on a resume to fit a job description but knows nothing or little about the job.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  145. Sam from Missouri

    Jack.....I am just really taken by the callous nature of those companies that won't hire the unemployed. With so many people out of work the human resources people try to cut THEIR workload by not interviewing people presently not employed? How do they know they got the best candidate for a position? How do they know if they hired a person who really wants to work? And...how do they know if they passed a person by that needs a job to feed the kids and make the mortgage? That is the lack of concern for our fellow human beings that will divide us as a nation, cause workers to stop looking for work and hurt families in the process. Shame on any employer that condones those rules....you know maybe if they lose THEIR job they might get treated the same way...Kharma comes around...Ya Know?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  146. Maryanne

    Jack, This is why we need Pres. Obama's program to give tax breaks to companies that hire the unemployed. I am not a big fan of tax breaks for big corporations, but they will do something (ie hire the unemployed) if there is something in it for them.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  147. Eddie

    Seems bass ackwards. The unemployed are the hungry ones. Those who are willing to go the extra mile to get the job done. Those who are willing to work for a little less money which speaks to that all important bottom line. What company worth its salt wouldn't want to take advantage of that?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  148. Justin, NJ

    That's great, so much for a $100,000 degree, been looking for a job for a year. Not even a nibble. Can't even get unemployment, and working at Target isn't really making the resume look any better.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  149. Paul P, Canada

    Then its just another typical example of businesses in a free market capitalist society acting in their best interest instead of the best interest of the public as a whole. They almost always do, yet we scratch our heads wondering why they do this? Don't look for ethics in business, you wont find any.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  150. Daniel

    SPELLING CORRECTIONS ON PREVIOUS POST:

    Jack, You've hit an issue with which I have much passion about. It I am an HR Mgr & IT Recruiter with 14 years experience. Most companies shun the following: Unemployed, Older workers & minorities. I've been witness to it for my whole career. I have never been allowed to speak out. So I am now. Companies hide behind the "not qulaified" or "does not meet requirements" period. It's hard to pin them on discrimination, but it happens daily across the board in all industries. You will not find any HR professional admit that, and if you investigate it, you will find no story, becuase no one will admit to it. That is the real situation in this country. Additionally, employers look at the unemployed as "losers" and they won't hire "losers" regardless of the candidates situation. I have been in each situation when we "passed" on the forementioned candidate types. They were people who would have helped the company. I'd like to challenge you to speak with SHRM or it's local memberships across the country. Their answer will be: "There is no discrimination of any applicants from our members. It's an all out lie!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  151. lynnej in nc

    It means that the unemployment numbers will grow.

    First they ship out the jobs and lay off people. These same people can't get a job because they have no job. Talk about stupid. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

    I guess other nations love us because we always manage to make fools of ourselves on a daily basis.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  152. Darlene Livingston

    That doesn't make any sense. Companies usually try to bring down labor cost. That is why they export jobs so why would they want to compete for higher salaried workers when high unemployment offers them the opportunity to replace workers with lower salaries. By laying off high salaried workers and hiring unemployed(less bargaining power) better qualified workers at lower salaries. Companies I have worked for lay of higher salaried workers first and rotate until they have lowered labor costs.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  153. Ralph bateman

    It's not surprizing that some companies are only looking for 'employed' individuals.

    Smaller companies comprise the largest employer, but felt the effects of the recession more than any other group.

    In survival mode, the higher income bracket employees had to leave before 'key' workers, (programmers, Technicians and craftsmen, etc.)

    The practice of considering only 'employed' individuals is at best dissapointing, and at worst a reflection of appauling hiring practices.

    But hey, the way we're giving away our manufacturing base, it really won't make much difference in a year or two.

    The situation for

    June 22, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  154. Tim in Texas

    First, employers should under no circumstances have access to an employees credit rating. Second, all and any tax credits or tax breaks for hiring should apply only to those who hire people who are currently hired part-time and are being hired full-time, or to those who are currently unemployed. Third, it is time to tax the wealthy – they are not and have not been 'trickling down' any jobs or funds to the middle class. It is absurd that some people in this country are making over a billion dollars a year while a full-time minimum wage employee makes $16 thousand a year. That is capitalism out of control.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  155. Angela

    I'm glad you brought up this topic, because I've been saying it all along and I'm glad I'm not crazy for thinking so. I lost my job almost four months ago, and sat back while three of my former co-workers who were still employed found second jobs almost instantly while I've had only two interviews in four months, with no success. One of them even allowed me to use him as a reference to his new employer, and while we shared the same skill set, I was not even given a second thought. What gives? Between discrimanatory hiring managers and unemployed people who won't even consider jobs that don't equal their unemployment, where do I fit in? Obviously nowhere.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
  156. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    Expect a class action suit by the unemployed against any company that eliminates them from interviewing for a job.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  157. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    This is nothing new, Jack.

    I encountered the problem, then being told it was 'blackballing' over 40 years ago when I quit my first job without having another to go to.

    It took me over two years to find other work at a pay rate far below even the going rate for new college graduates, but...

    .... As it turned out several years later, I was held back in pay advances and promotions because, as my boss told me when I eventually left for 'greener pastures' that they thought they had me my my male anatomy!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  158. D.Gray

    I read this in the Phila Inquire a few weeks ago. Shame that its that way - the monsters that run business are not human anymore, not since the mid 80's. Everything changed. A permanant job is never permanant, they steal pension money, they work you to death, they intrude into your personal life and now if you are not employed you are not employable? What a joke!!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  159. Jim, Va

    Great news for Obama ,i hear he might be interested !!!!!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  160. Angela Savage Austin

    I also experience other forms of discrimination that is institutionalized. I am 55 and been unemployed for almost 2 years. I never had a problem gettin a job before. My B.A. degree is no better than toilet paper. I believe that no one is willing to hire me because of the exspense to provide me with medical benefits to insure someone my age.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  161. Angela

    I think these comanies are taking the easy way, because they think that people who are already employed will not have a problem with anemic paart time hours and no benefits that these people are offering trying to save money.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
  162. Marguerite

    From Seattle.

    Sadly, I think that rule only applies to the American worker who have years of experience and have been laid off for monetary reasons and not to the workers from other countries who business claim they need to hire because the American worker doesn't have the skills they need.

    I just attended a seminar on how to get the Mature worker back into the workforce and there were 50 extremely talented and knowledgable people in that class and I could not believe all of these laid off folks were not able to get re-employed and now I guess I know why.

    This is criminal!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  163. JimGreen, Seguin, TX www.Inclusivism.org

    Jack, I am not sure I agree with you –if a company accepts “incentive” money to hire—and then tries to weasle out hiring – that a crime has not been committed, or a cause of action, at a minimum – what do the CNN attorneys say?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  164. Terry from Illinois

    The unemployed have every reason to complain. The past administration passed laws that gave tax cuts to companies who sent jobs overseas. Now that same political party is blocking unemployment extensions for the unemployed.
    Obama said he would change that if elected, has not happened but he is trying some stuff of which the other side is blocking also.
    Obama needs to change the trade agreements, NAFTA and the global trade agreements have hurt the American worker more so than any worker globally. Next change the tax cuts for companies sending jobs out of America, Next limit what CEO's and Executive managers can earn compared to workers such as the French, Japanese and others do.
    Its no wonder that record number of foreclosures on homes, record credit card debit and record bankruptcies in America...Thanks GOP !

    June 22, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  165. Samuel

    Oh, by the way, the less time you spend in the U.S., the lower your taxes too. Live in America 6 months per year. Two can play this game! If more American seek work abroad, the tax base will plummet. Need I say what will happen after that.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  166. Anthony

    This is the biggest reason that there is 10% unemployment in the first place because the employers only want people that already have jobs and don't think that we the unemployed can do the job which is the biggest pile of bs that i can see we should as a people make a petition to all employers to stop this practice for good and then and only then will we get jobs back in the hands of American citizens. Oh yeah i am part of that 10% of the unemployed in the U.S.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
  167. Ralph bateman

    Jack,

    Many Exec's and senior managers were released because orders dried up.

    I worked for companies were as many as 80% of employees where let go. (I know because I had to let them go) It got so bad, particularly for the small to mid size companies suffering from reduced orders, that senior staff were laid off and owners took on the work.

    Earning higher salaries by virtue of being able to 'do it right' can often be a negative.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
  168. Bruce, NJ

    So these companies prefer to hire workers who are willing to walk away from their present job whenever a better offer comes along? Think about it.

    I can give you a list of past supervisors and direct recipients of my work over the years who fought hard to keep me employed and advance me, only to be overridden by the ivory tower that coldly threw me and others out the door to artificially inflate profits and satisfy Wall Street. To assume that people are unemployed because there is something not right with them is as prejudicial as excluding candidates based on race or sex.

    BTW, I resent what a previous submitter said about employed people being a safer choice because they've already been vetted. Do they think the presently unemployed have never been employed and have no work record – like high school and recent college graduates who are being hired over me?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
  169. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    Companies use mass layoffs more and more today because they get sued by those people they fire outright. Furthermore, many states have laws on the books that prohibit employers from making any negative statements about any terminated employee's 'poor' performance.

    Divorce attorneys use the same strategies, too, Jack. It's a no-win situation for all of us who are 'employees at will'.

    June 22, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
  170. Alynn

    Just like there are business tax incentives for hiring people from the Welfare line, perhaps there could be an incentive for the historically unemployed. I have been out of work over a year and a half and not without consistent effort to find work. With no unemployment benefits, the welfare line is next ? Expect the "historically" unemployed to either revolt, break up their families or resort to crime to provide life's basic necessities if practicessuch as these continue to keep the American citizens down. Hopefully one day the job market will be in our favor and, like elephants, we won't forget!

    June 22, 2010 at 6:45 pm |
  171. Ralph bateman

    Jack,

    My wife has been unemployed for almost three years. She is a trained and qualified Medical Doctor from Brazil.

    She specialized in Psychiatry.

    Arriviving in the US over ten years ago, she chose not to put herself through the AMA conveluted training process in order to practice medicine here in the States.

    This week alone, she was refused employment in two low cost store chains (min. wage) and just today recieved notice that her application for a position as a counselor for victims of drunk driving.

    What's going on with recruitment here in the US Jack? Is it a reflection of our rapidly failing posion as an industrial leader?

    June 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm |