Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

pahunkboy -> Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 12:18:04 PM)

Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month? Bad news: Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants. In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting.



But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason." In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the


The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies. "It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."



There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department. Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place.


The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL." When asked about the ad, a spokeswoman said, "This was a mistake, and once it was noticed it was removed." Ads asking the unemployed not to apply are easy to find. A Craigslist ad for assistant restaurant managers in Edgewater, N.J. specifies, "Must be currently employed." Another job posting for a tax manager at an unnamed "top 25 CPA firm" in New York City contains the same line in all caps./sniphttp://blacklistednews.com/news-9099-0-13-13--.html



TreasureKY -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 12:45:10 PM)

PA... this is really not uncommon.  For many, many years companies have used employment status in considering applicants.  The assumption, correct or not, is that if someone is not already employed, there is a reason.

I'm not defending the practice, but I do understand it.  I agree that in this day and age of such high unemployment, it shouldn't hold the weight that it once did.  More often than not, employees are let go for economic reasons related to the company and not for any reason that reflects on the employee.

However, it does hold some weight.  If a company has 10 engineers and has to downsize by 4... more than likely it is going to be the 4 least productive or qualified that are laid off.

Companies looking to hire want one of the 8 who were considered too valuable to let go.  They aren't as interested in the ones who were deemed expendable.



pahunkboy -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 1:04:02 PM)

...of note- is the 2 week notice.  Some people think that it is not needed- but it should be given.

locally- we had an ad- "no job hoppers".  How does that work?   Places close and merge all the time.



Fellow -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 1:36:26 PM)

Only conclusion I can make is that the managers who hire workers are stupid. There are other stupid practices like "overqualified for a job".  Businesses are not looking for a talent. The Labor Department 5.5 per job opening does not have much meaning. Job offerings with benefits and living wage get several hundred applications the first few days the ad is run.



DarkSteven -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 5:05:15 PM)

I saw the same thing fifteen years ago when unemployed and looking for a job.

Tight labor market, they can add rules like that.



Aneirin -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 5:15:37 PM)

In other words, the feckless need not apply



ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 5:29:23 PM)

Treasure: More likely, they will fire the most-senior/highest paid engineers, especially if it's a publicly-traded company.

That quote about looking for people who are happy where they are...? If you're happy in you job you more-than-likely are NOT looking for a new gig.

Such a company would probably do better to look exclusively among the un-employed. From personal experience I can tell you that when you start to get a little desparate you'll take what you can get and be happy about it.

~Dave



flcouple2009 -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 5:30:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

PA... this is really not uncommon.  For many, many years companies have used employment status in considering applicants.  The assumption, correct or not, is that if someone is not already employed, there is a reason.

I'm not defending the practice, but I do understand it.  I agree that in this day and age of such high unemployment, it shouldn't hold the weight that it once did.  More often than not, employees are let go for economic reasons related to the company and not for any reason that reflects on the employee.

However, it does hold some weight.  If a company has 10 engineers and has to downsize by 4... more than likely it is going to be the 4 least productive or qualified that are laid off.

Companies looking to hire want one of the 8 who were considered too valuable to let go.  They aren't as interested in the ones who were deemed expendable.


Which ignores the fact that people are often let go because of their salary and position.  Many companies take the opportunity to release those with higher salaries. 

I can remember working somewhere which had a "temporary" lay off during the slow time of year to keep the books balanced correctly for the stock price.  Everyone "laid off" was on a higher wage scale and an older benefit plan. 

When the time came to add the workers back none of them were recalled.  They were replaced with new people who came in at much lower wages and a new cheaper plan.  



TreasureKY -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 6:52:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

Treasure: More likely, they will fire the most-senior/highest paid engineers, especially if it's a publicly-traded company.

That quote about looking for people who are happy where they are...? If you're happy in you job you more-than-likely are NOT looking for a new gig.

Such a company would probably do better to look exclusively among the un-employed. From personal experience I can tell you that when you start to get a little desparate you'll take what you can get and be happy about it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

Which ignores the fact that people are often let go because of their salary and position.  Many companies take the opportunity to release those with higher salaries. 

I can remember working somewhere which had a "temporary" lay off during the slow time of year to keep the books balanced correctly for the stock price.  Everyone "laid off" was on a higher wage scale and an older benefit plan. 

When the time came to add the workers back none of them were recalled.  They were replaced with new people who came in at much lower wages and a new cheaper plan.


Gentlemen,

I spent the bulk of my professional years in Human Resources management.  While I am sure that there is some of what you claim happening, I also know very well that most companies are in business to make money.  You can't do that with inferior help.

Yes, there are some companies who take the opportunity of an economic downturn to lay off some of the higher paid dead-weight, particularly in low-skilled positions.  But the companies that fill professional positions are very concerned about getting the most "bang for their buck".  If a higher paid position is eliminated, it is typically because it is not needed.

Again, the school of thought in this area is that individuals who have been culled, have been culled for a reason.  Perhaps not good reasons, but companies that are seeking don't often like to gamble to find out for themselves. 

I'm not defending the practice, but it is a valid and well worn recruiting technique.



thornhappy -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/6/2010 7:23:38 PM)

Yeah, there was a reason.  The company decided to let go a bunch of people to make the stock look better.  I was in a very small group that provided design tools to the engineers, and we were cut in half, including a brand-new PhD.  What's crazy is that another group would've hired me in a heartbeat if they'd known I was going to be laid off.  Most of the people laid off were laid off due to cancellation of an entire product line.  Total layoff was about 800 people.  That was the only time in 17 years that I was laid off from a job, and that's a really good statistic for the high-tech field.  I found a job in 3 months (this was in 1999). 

If those kinds of ads increase, there'll be frickin' riots going on.

Now, regarding the the best folks being left, you can have a group of fricken rock stars  and you're laying off A guys instead of A+ guys (this is also a problem of forcing your employee evaluations to fit a gaussian curve and you get rid of the lowest 20%, even if they are extremely talented, like at Intel).  You're losing extremely skilled people.  To your competitors! 

One company I worked for got wrapped up in a periodic semiconductor downturn and decided to have us take every other Friday off unpaid and froze our pay, instead of doing layoffs.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

PA... this is really not uncommon.  For many, many years companies have used employment status in considering applicants.  The assumption, correct or not, is that if someone is not already employed, there is a reason.

I'm not defending the practice, but I do understand it.  I agree that in this day and age of such high unemployment, it shouldn't hold the weight that it once did.  More often than not, employees are let go for economic reasons related to the company and not for any reason that reflects on the employee.

However, it does hold some weight.  If a company has 10 engineers and has to downsize by 4... more than likely it is going to be the 4 least productive or qualified that are laid off.

Companies looking to hire want one of the 8 who were considered too valuable to let go.  They aren't as interested in the ones who were deemed expendable.



LadyEllen -> RE: Companies Now Requiring Job Applicants to Already Have a Job (6/7/2010 2:44:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

I spent the bulk of my professional years in Human Resources management.  While I am sure that there is some of what you claim happening, I also know very well that most companies are in business to make money.  You can't do that with inferior help.



I can only speak for my sector but its notable that it has seen a huge change over the last couple of decades whereby employers have dispensed with experienced, qualified people and taken on what are more or less school leavers to fill their places.

The reason? Obviously there is a huge cost saving on payroll but no one would have even thought of such a thing without the notion that computers can replace years of experience, education and training. Nowadays it is more often the case that companies over rely on IT, pitching youngsters who, because they can operate a PC are deemed adequate because the computer tells them what to do, when to do it and how.

This is all very well and good of course - operators adopting such methods can undercut the employers of experienced, qualified people because of the payroll savings.

Unfortunately for such methods though, and fortunately for us, experience shows us time and again that the service levels obtainable from such a strategy to the client are poor at best, and do not necessarily reflect in the prices charged. The lesson is coming clearer to manufacturing exporters and importers I think - if youre going to book a service then its service that youre paying for; an odd thing to say perhaps but a truth that has been forgotten latterly.

And the same can be said of employers taking on staff. Its false economy to rely on technology to such an extent that you think you can get away with monkeys paid with peanuts. As customers realise this more and more, the situation will right itself through market forces - as long as the experienced, qualified people are still around by then of course - and those offering service delivered through such people will succeed at the expense of the rest.

And as that relates to this thread its good news - for those of us who are trained, qualified and experienced understand that its only through bringing newcomers in that there will be trained, qualified and experienced people for the future to pay for our retirement!

E



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125