Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,718,293 times
Reputation: 3690
Advertisements
wouldn't that be hell of an effort? that person has to put in 2 weeks notice or maybe have to move from the current job.. but when an unemployed person would be able to mostly start today or at least immediately..
wouldn't that be hell of an effort? that person has to put in 2 weeks notice or maybe have to move from the current job.. but when an unemployed person would be able to mostly start today or at least immediately..
People who already have a job have skills that have kept them on someone's payroll up till now. People who are unemployed are viewed as having no marketable skills or they would still have a job.
Companies still in business keep their star players and drop their dead weight in a recession.
wouldn't that be hell of an effort? that person has to put in 2 weeks notice or maybe have to move from the current job.. but when an unemployed person would be able to mostly start today or at least immediately..
Most companies only hire people who are currently employed? That is the new standard now?
Go figure...I'm out of the loop.
I would hire the best qualified person for the position. If they are unemployed that is even better because they can start right away.
My 25+ years experience with working for companies is many of the people who have been with a company for decades are usually the laziest and the least up to date with their skills. They are usually just coasting, riding it out until retirement, especially in government jobs.
So not necessarily are people who are employed more marketable, and more skilled than someone who is unemployed. But we can't talk about that.
I say look at the person's education, experience and skills when hiring and stop focusing ONLY employment gaps and other secondary flaws. Anyway, most hiring is based on personality, so all the education, skills, flaws don't make a difference if the hiring manager doesn't like you.
wouldn't that be hell of an effort? that person has to put in 2 weeks notice or maybe have to move from the current job.. but when an unemployed person would be able to mostly start today or at least immediately..
Depends on length of unemployment for the most part. I know that my former department who all got cut some weeks ago are still all interviewing pretty aggressively. There has not been a downturn in their interviews.
But here are the reasons I have heard said in the workplace:
1. The person's "lay off" was finally the company getting rid of dead weight. I will say that my last company this was normally the case-- UNLESS-- they were moving the entire department to another state --OR-- the entire project had been canned. But the folks who were laid off a few in this department, a few here-- generally were dead weight decisions.
2. The person's position did not really add to the company's bottom line or the skills were not that great so they were easily expendable
3. With longer term unemployed-- skills are stagnant and begin to lose transferability.
4. If they still have not found a job after a long period of time-- then that must mean no one else wants them either, so why do I want them?
I am not sure what classifies as a long time unemployed. I think that depends on who is doing the interviewing, etc.
The theory goes: When companies lay off people, they lay off the least valuable employees. So the folks at are unemployed are bottom of the crop.
It's not 100% accurate, but not far off either.
My previous companies operated this way. GE has a history of operating this way too.
The only times that my company did not lay off just the least valuable was when there was a significant department relocation (we had jobs move to some of the flyover states not many from the east coast wanted to go) OR when an entire project/product line was canned.
For example, my product line was completely killed. We laid off folks in every country that we operated in. Many have found new positions within the company (and we had staffing and HR folks dedicated to helping in those processes). I made the decision to go outside-- for some new perspective although one of my long term plans after school would be to return to the company at a much higher position.
No one was exempt from this lay off-- my management, my developers, my analysts, my project folks, etc. Everyone all the way up to senior executives. I saw it coming a few months away so I was very well equipped to find a new position. Many others kept on their blinders and just didn't believe it would happen.
Ranking or value did not really matter in this case.
And I will say-- that I don't blame them for doing it. It WAS the RIGHT business decision. I did not feel any bitterness just sadness because I loved my job, the product, and my coworkers. But-- in the end from a purely financial standpoint-- I would have made the same decision.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
45,046 posts, read 82,304,253 times
Reputation: 58676
I'd attribute this to a completely different reason. It's not so much that employers won't hire unemployed people, as not even interviewing them.
When there are 100+ applicants for every job, many of them often turn out to be people fulfilling their requirement for collecting unemployment. Why waste time interviewing people that may not really want to work? We actually had someone in another department that was offered a job ask if he could delay the start 2 months so he could get his last two unemployment checks. That's not the kind of attitude that makes an employer confident about a person's job ethic.
This may be an unusual, small percentage of applicants, but the applicant currently working for whom the job would be a step up is a better risk. Too bad some people have ruined it for so many others.
I'd attribute this to a completely different reason. It's not so much that employers won't hire unemployed people, as not even interviewing them.
When there are 100+ applicants for every job, many of them often turn out to be people fulfilling their requirement for collecting unemployment. Why waste time interviewing people that may not really want to work? We actually had someone in another department that was offered a job ask if he could delay the start 2 months so he could get his last two unemployment checks. That's not the kind of attitude that makes an employer confident about a person's job ethic.
This may be an unusual, small percentage of applicants, but the applicant currently working for whom the job would be a step up is a better risk. Too bad some people have ruined it for so many others.
*blinks* I am fascinated by people.
Seriously???
Salt of the earth.. salt of the earth. I swear there are times where I feel like as a "species" we are not evolving in the smart direction but are degrading into the imbecile direction.
I am guessing this idiot did not realize that 1) Unemployment compensation tends to be significantly less than true salary 2) NO ONE is going to want to hire someone who basically is saying-- hey I want to sit on my arse for another few weeks to make sure I get every ounce of my pittance of unemployment
Fascinating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
