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.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/22/art.job.intv.jpg caption=""]
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?
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.