Unemployed Need Not Apply
02-16-2011, 09:48 PM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Unemployed Need Not Apply
From McClatchy Newspapers:
As if finding work weren't hard enough, a federal agency warns that some employers are excluding jobless workers from consideration for openings.
People testified before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Wednesday about what some said is a growing trend of employers refusing to consider hiring the unemployed.
The practice has surfaced in electronic and print postings with language such as "unemployed applicants will not be considered" or "must be currently employed."
"Excluding unemployed workers from employment opportunities is unfair to workers, bad for the economy, and potentially violates basic civil-rights protections because of the disparate impact on older workers, workers of color, women and others," Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, testified.
Several examples of such help-wanted ads were offered: A Texas electronics company said online that it would "not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason"; an ad for a restaurant-manager position in New Jersey said applicants must be employed; a phone manufacturer's job announcement said "No Unemployed Candidates Will Be Considered At All," according to Helen Norton, associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Law.
Even if the companies pull the language from their ads, many still discriminate against the unemployed, Owens said.
Evidence about how widespread the practice may be is sketchy. But reports of it have caught the attention of regulators, lawmakers and advocates for the unemployed.
In one prominent report last year, an advertisement from Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was recruiting workers for a new Georgia facility, was restricted to those currently employed.
The company removed the restriction after media publicity.
Members of Congress contacted the Department of Labor and the EEOC to see whether the practice violates federal employment laws against discrimination.
While the unemployed aren't a protected class under civil-rights laws, the practice could be legally problematic if it has a disparate or discriminatory effect on groups of job seekers subject to civil-rights protections.
Several witnesses testified at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C., that excluding the unemployed from job openings could disproportionately affect African Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities and older workers — all federally protected groups whose jobless rates are well-above the U.S. average.
Blacks and Hispanics are particularly vulnerable, said William Spriggs, the Labor Department's assistant secretary for policy, because they represent a large share of unemployed workers and a smaller portion of those with jobs.
Although the nationwide unemployment rate is 9 percent, the jobless rate is 15.7 percent among blacks and 11.9 percent among Hispanics, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"When employers exclude the unemployed from the applicant pool, they are more likely to be excluding Latinos and African Americans," Spriggs testified.
Most seem to agree that the overwhelming majority of job postings don't contain such language. James Urban, a partner at Jones Day law firm in Pittsburgh who counsels large employers, testified that he's never dealt with an employer who wouldn't hire the jobless.
Listings that exclude unemployed applicants would violate terms-of-use policies against discrimination at Monster.com, which posts hundreds of thousands of job openings.
"We would flag that as a violation of our policy," company spokesman Matthew Henson said. He said the website screened listings for such problems.
While jobless applicants might have "skills that are stale or obsolete" compared with employed candidates, screening them out isn't effective because it limits the pool of qualified workers, said Fernan Cepero, state director of the New York State Society for Human Resource Management.
He said the practice probably wasn't widespread because "the stakes involved are too high for that."
But Owens, of the National Employment Law Project, said her group routinely heard from older workers who had been rejected for consideration because they weren't employed.
A 53-year-old Illinois woman who was laid off after 19 years as an information-technology supervisor said a recruiter wouldn't send her on a job interview when he realized she hadn't worked for a year.
A 44-year-old woman lost out on a pharmaceutical-sales position because the job required that she be currently employed in the industry or have left it within six months.
Owens said that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, it was illegal for employers to use practices that "limit, segregate or classify" individuals in ways that limited or denied employment opportunities based on race, gender, color, religion, ethnicity or age. Practices that seem nondiscriminatory could violate these laws if they have a disparate impact on members of these protected classes.
The commission will gather more information about the issue and might, in time, provide guidance to employers about the practice and suggestions on how to avoid any legal conflicts in job postings.
As if finding work weren't hard enough, a federal agency warns that some employers are excluding jobless workers from consideration for openings.
People testified before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Wednesday about what some said is a growing trend of employers refusing to consider hiring the unemployed.
The practice has surfaced in electronic and print postings with language such as "unemployed applicants will not be considered" or "must be currently employed."
"Excluding unemployed workers from employment opportunities is unfair to workers, bad for the economy, and potentially violates basic civil-rights protections because of the disparate impact on older workers, workers of color, women and others," Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, testified.
Several examples of such help-wanted ads were offered: A Texas electronics company said online that it would "not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason"; an ad for a restaurant-manager position in New Jersey said applicants must be employed; a phone manufacturer's job announcement said "No Unemployed Candidates Will Be Considered At All," according to Helen Norton, associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Law.
Even if the companies pull the language from their ads, many still discriminate against the unemployed, Owens said.
Evidence about how widespread the practice may be is sketchy. But reports of it have caught the attention of regulators, lawmakers and advocates for the unemployed.
In one prominent report last year, an advertisement from Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was recruiting workers for a new Georgia facility, was restricted to those currently employed.
The company removed the restriction after media publicity.
Members of Congress contacted the Department of Labor and the EEOC to see whether the practice violates federal employment laws against discrimination.
While the unemployed aren't a protected class under civil-rights laws, the practice could be legally problematic if it has a disparate or discriminatory effect on groups of job seekers subject to civil-rights protections.
Several witnesses testified at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C., that excluding the unemployed from job openings could disproportionately affect African Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities and older workers — all federally protected groups whose jobless rates are well-above the U.S. average.
Blacks and Hispanics are particularly vulnerable, said William Spriggs, the Labor Department's assistant secretary for policy, because they represent a large share of unemployed workers and a smaller portion of those with jobs.
Although the nationwide unemployment rate is 9 percent, the jobless rate is 15.7 percent among blacks and 11.9 percent among Hispanics, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"When employers exclude the unemployed from the applicant pool, they are more likely to be excluding Latinos and African Americans," Spriggs testified.
Most seem to agree that the overwhelming majority of job postings don't contain such language. James Urban, a partner at Jones Day law firm in Pittsburgh who counsels large employers, testified that he's never dealt with an employer who wouldn't hire the jobless.
Listings that exclude unemployed applicants would violate terms-of-use policies against discrimination at Monster.com, which posts hundreds of thousands of job openings.
"We would flag that as a violation of our policy," company spokesman Matthew Henson said. He said the website screened listings for such problems.
While jobless applicants might have "skills that are stale or obsolete" compared with employed candidates, screening them out isn't effective because it limits the pool of qualified workers, said Fernan Cepero, state director of the New York State Society for Human Resource Management.
He said the practice probably wasn't widespread because "the stakes involved are too high for that."
But Owens, of the National Employment Law Project, said her group routinely heard from older workers who had been rejected for consideration because they weren't employed.
A 53-year-old Illinois woman who was laid off after 19 years as an information-technology supervisor said a recruiter wouldn't send her on a job interview when he realized she hadn't worked for a year.
A 44-year-old woman lost out on a pharmaceutical-sales position because the job required that she be currently employed in the industry or have left it within six months.
Owens said that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, it was illegal for employers to use practices that "limit, segregate or classify" individuals in ways that limited or denied employment opportunities based on race, gender, color, religion, ethnicity or age. Practices that seem nondiscriminatory could violate these laws if they have a disparate impact on members of these protected classes.
The commission will gather more information about the issue and might, in time, provide guidance to employers about the practice and suggestions on how to avoid any legal conflicts in job postings.
02-17-2011, 01:35 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 193
Can you blame the employers?
“So Mr./Ms. Applicant, What have you been doing last year you since you’ve been unemployed?”
……Well I’ve been home waiting for the Ice Cream Factory to call and offer my old job back……..
“Thank you for your time Mr./Ms Applicant, we’ll call and let you know something soon.”……Next .
“So Mr./Ms. Applicant, What have you been doing last year you since you’ve been unemployed?”
……Well I’ve been home waiting for the Ice Cream Factory to call and offer my old job back……..
“Thank you for your time Mr./Ms Applicant, we’ll call and let you know something soon.”……Next .
02-20-2011, 11:12 AM
#4
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 12
I thought they liked unemployed applicants. In my experience the immediate availability puts a smile on their face, and I also recall them enjoying asking what I last earned before struggling to mentally calculate a salary 20% lower. 
In my experience it's far better to do temporary work whilst job-hunting so that interviewers feel they have to 'tempt' you away with at least a fair offer.
In my experience it's far better to do temporary work whilst job-hunting so that interviewers feel they have to 'tempt' you away with at least a fair offer.
02-20-2011, 11:27 AM
#5
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
I can understand why employers might do this in the current environment, at least for skilled jobs. Makes for fewer applicants they have to sort through, and eliminates those who are unqualified but might be desperate and willing to shade the truth to get a job.
If they can get enough applicants from the already-employed ranks, it would be tempting to look no further.
I kind of think this should be illegal, but airlines do it all the time for a good reason...they want you current and recent so that you can pass training.
If they can get enough applicants from the already-employed ranks, it would be tempting to look no further.
I kind of think this should be illegal, but airlines do it all the time for a good reason...they want you current and recent so that you can pass training.
02-20-2011, 11:47 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
current and recent.. pfft..... when I got back into aviation in 2007 ....except for 10 or so hours in a 172 I had no problem passing a part 121 ground school....sim... and out of IOE in min time. I think for an experienced pilot the current and recent flight time requirement is BS....
02-20-2011, 12:09 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: A-320 FO
Posts: 693
What I don't think is right is categorizing self employed as unemployed, and there are a couple of carriers who do this. There is a vast difference between someone who is living "off of the system" and someone who operates three successful businesses. It got to the point where I needed to lose the stigma of being self employed, rapidly. I now work for an LLC, collecting W2's and a pay stub, courtesy of my significant other.
As I attempt to re-enter the airline biz I am often asked what I am doing to stay current, I flight instruct staying current and qualified. This seems to satisfy the most curious HR people.
As I attempt to re-enter the airline biz I am often asked what I am doing to stay current, I flight instruct staying current and qualified. This seems to satisfy the most curious HR people.
02-20-2011, 01:20 PM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
current and recent.. pfft..... when I got back into aviation in 2007 ....except for 10 or so hours in a 172 I had no problem passing a part 121 ground school....sim... and out of IOE in min time. I think for an experienced pilot the current and recent flight time requirement is BS....
02-20-2011, 03:11 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: A-320 FO
Posts: 693
Carriers may or may not keep these stats, but I guess statistically it's true. I found it like riding a bike, and all those other things. It's going to be a tough barrier to break, however I think I found a couple of people willing to work with me, albeit a little gun shy. Not so much recency of experience, but bailing as soon as I get some time in. Each wants a commitment which I have no problem with.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
