RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias

RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (Full Version)

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

Message

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:06:49 PM)
It s a wonder you get employees to work for you at all. Why anyone would go to a company in the full knowledge that their contract would be very short is beyond me. It wouldnt be me that's for sure, been there done that, unless the employer is willing to talk long term and offer me a permanent or contract position, he/she is not in the ballpark as far as im concerned kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:08:52 PM)
Because they located here, gave people jobs in good times granted, but are now just adding to the recession by pulling out when things are a little ropey but not catastrophic by any means and turfing people out of jobs, thus grinding economic activity to a halt because people dont have jobs and cant afford to spend money and so the vicious cycle continues kevin

thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:09:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey A friend said this. I think it pretty much covers it A job is where you exchange time/labor/talent for money. Work is where you make the world a better place each day. A career is for those that can do both at the same time. I'm upset that Occupy Wall Street would work at taking the benefit of my job away. Perhaps if you were to actually find out what they wanted you would not make such asinine statements. They know some of us will still do the work because it makes the worker a better person. Just what is the mechanism that causes a person to become a better person by the simple act of working. Are you saying that people like bill gates and steeve jobs are not good people because they do not have a job? But then Occupy Wall Street is against anyone being better than anyone else. You may have rushe's word on that but I would like to see some validation from a non drug addict source So eventually I will have to quit my job to be as miserable as them. Nice plan Occupy Wall Street, if everyone is destitute then there will be a black market in producing goods and services. It seems like I watched a bunch of cold war movies where they were doing that in Russia. So all of your knowledge of international politics and economics is drawn from propaganda movies...your candor is appreciated

stef -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery The jobs should go to the best candidate and that candidate could be the one who was sitting on the couch the past 18 months like me, cleverly biding our time, ingeniously waiting for the upturn to precipitate You're not "biding your time", you're unemployable. quote: you have to admit mate is it not a cunning and impressive stratagem, after all who wants to work in the middle of the worst recession in memory when team morale is at an all time low Morale is just fine in my workplace but that might have something to do with the fact that we don't hire total losers who are more interested in a co-worker's makeup or footwear than they are in doing their job. We hired nearly 500 people globally during the last year and will likely do so again in the coming year. You will most certainly not be one of them.

thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Back in the days when I hired and fired, I always had a preference for those folks with a good, current work history. More often than not, it was a good bet. The plain truth is that the more recent that a person has been used to getting up in the morning and going to work, the more reliable they are when it comes time to expect them to clock in on Monday morning. The longer a person is out of the habit of getting up to go to work when the alarm clock goes off, the less dependable they tend to be. Your assumption here is that once someone is unemployed they become a couch potato...Without some sort of external validtion of this assumption,on your part, this can only be considered as your opinion.

tazzygirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:29:35 PM)
[:D] [image]local://upfiles/502828/7A7811C222A447B0B800A4DB47670465.jpg[/image]

thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:29:43 PM)
quote: Take the lady in the article. She was a school bus driver, who now wants to work at Fed-ex. Driving a bulky vehicle in an urban environment is a skill that can easily be dulled, and comes with a big liability risk for the employer. from your cited article: Forte, scraping by now as a part time substitute school bus driver, The individual in question has 8 years experience driving a "bulky vehicle" in an urban environment and is currently driving a bulky vehicle in an urban environment...How is that an big liability risk for the employer?

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:31:40 PM)
I am so tired of the way most employers treat employees. Too old? We won't hire you because you'll drive up health insurance premiums (this doesn't happen in countries with single-payer health care). Loyal and dependable long term employee? Time to hire someone for a lower wage and get rid of you before you're eligible for a company pension. Too much experience? We won't hire you because we don't want to pay you what you're worth. You have a family to support? Too bad your job is going overseas. No middle class American is entitled to a job, but all fat cat CEO's are entitled to their bonuses. Job hoppers are definitely the smartest. Why should employees be loyal to companies who aren't loyal to them?

tazzygirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:32:42 PM)
Because she was driving kids.... not packages potentially worth lots of money.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact From the other side of the desk, most people just aren't the awesome employee that they think they are. That's really what being in HR is about. From the candidates that you have in front of you, choosing the best person for the job. It's not about caring for the reason they were off on FMLA or any other personal problem that they had. It is all about that person's potential for being at the right place, at the right time, doing the right job. [/color] And THAT is the point. By ignoring those who have been unemployed, you aren't looking at the person's potential. The reason they were unemployed CAN be very relevant. In my case, with my health issues, I fully understand an employer's reticence to hire me (if I were able to return to work). As an employer, I would look at someone with chronic health problems as high risk, regardless of my 20 years experience. But knowing some people who have become unemployed and have gotten up every day and search and interviewed and found nothing and knowing that employers are looking down on them because they are unemployed is ridiculous. Same thing with those underemployed. When you have a family, people will always say "bite the bullet, just take any job so that you have an income AND you can avoid gaps in your employment." Problem is that when someone does that so they can keep from being homeless, HR people don't want to talk to them because they took the shit job to get by. The other problem is that so many of the people who are unemployed right now ARE older employees with more experience. Companies would rather hire new grads, not because they have the most up to date knowledge, but because they are cheapest. Older employees have responsibilities, and because they have experience, they command a higher paycheck. Why spend 50K a year for someone when you can get a new grad at 30K? The bottom line is that whether currently employed, recently employed or long term unemployed, an employer should be looking at the skills of the applicant and interviewing based on that. I realize that employers are inundated with resumes and need to narrow it down somehow, but ignoring those out of work really isn't achieving the best possible outcome. Not for the employer, not for the employee and not for our current economy. ETA: The fact that job hoppers look good on paper, and that causes you to interview them is a big part of the problem. And since when does a potential employer know what is on anyone's 1040?

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your assumption here is that once someone is unemployed they become a couch potato...Without some sort of external validtion of this assumption,on your part, this can only be considered as your opinion. Yes. This is My opinion based on My work experience in the field. (There are a couple of people on these boards who can verify that I have worked in human resources.) When a person works in HR, their primary job is to fill slots for the company. That's it. It's not about worrying about the circumstances that the special little snowflake sitting across the desk from you has in their personal life. Their family circumstances, personal problems, or any other thing other than their work history and their potential as an employee are not your concern. The job you are doing is to find the best candidate to fill an opening. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's not a charity. It's business. My job was to fill the slot. Find (what I hoped) was the best person for the position. I didn't work for the applicants. I worked for the employer. The employer that a person has never worked for honestly doesn't give a shit what you've done with your personal time when you didn't have a job. There are twelve other people just like you waiting for that fifteen minutes across the desk who are trying to make an impression. From that fifteen minutes, some paperwork, and checking references, that person who is doing the hiring places a bet and gambles. I can't speak for anybody else who has ever done the job, but I can promise you that I went with the odds.

MidgeSub -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:47:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Back in the days when I hired and fired, I always had a preference for those folks with a good, current work history. More often than not, it was a good bet. The plain truth is that the more recent that a person has been used to getting up in the morning and going to work, the more reliable they are when it comes time to expect them to clock in on Monday morning. The longer a person is out of the habit of getting up to go to work when the alarm clock goes off, the less dependable they tend to be. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I would think someone who is unemployed and anxious to get a job would go out of their way to make sure they were at their job on time, if only out of gratitude to be working again.

tazzygirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:52:18 PM)
Wait... in LP's defence... consider the job market at this moment. Its an employer's dream. Pick of the litter so to speak. Yuo always pick the best qualified, the best trained, the most current in their field. Thats just how it goes.

Nosathro -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 4:59:26 PM)
I have help people prepare for the job market and I my instructer told me that being unemployed is view poorly when you are trying to get a job. Now I understand that even at job faires, these are events with the intent of helping get jobs there have been signs banning unemployed people. Yes there is a bias and with many people experience long time unemployment, like 2 years this bias must be overcome so the nation 9.1 unemployed can get back to work.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:05:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady And THAT is the point. By ignoring those who have been unemployed, you aren't looking at the person's potential. The reason they were unemployed CAN be very relevant. In my case, with my health issues, I fully understand an employer's reticence to hire me (if I were able to return to work). As an employer, I would look at someone with chronic health problems as high risk, regardless of my 20 years experience. But knowing some people who have become unemployed and have gotten up every day and search and interviewed and found nothing and knowing that employers are looking down on them because they are unemployed is ridiculous. Same thing with those underemployed. When you have a family, people will always say "bite the bullet, just take any job so that you have an income AND you can avoid gaps in your employment." Problem is that when someone does that so they can keep from being homeless, HR people don't want to talk to them because they took the shit job to get by. The other problem is that so many of the people who are unemployed right now ARE older employees with more experience. Companies would rather hire new grads, not because they have the most up to date knowledge, but because they are cheapest. Older employees have responsibilities, and because they have experience, they command a higher paycheck. Why spend 50K a year for someone when you can get a new grad at 30K? The bottom line is that whether currently employed, recently employed or long term unemployed, an employer should be looking at the skills of the applicant and interviewing based on that. I realize that employers are inundated with resumes and need to narrow it down somehow, but ignoring those out of work really isn't achieving the best possible outcome. Not for the employer, not for the employee and not for our current economy. ETA: The fact that job hoppers look good on paper, and that causes you to interview them is a big part of the problem. And since when does a potential employer know what is on anyone's 1040? Before I get ahead of Myself, the phrase "looking at a person's 1040" is a short cult term as to looking at their verifiable work history. It just means that I've checked their references and I've talked to someone who had that person on their payroll. No under the table jobs that they are trying to pass off as legitimate employment. In My opinion, you may be making a mistake. I'd rather have somebody with five years current experience in the field than a new grad any day. If they left their last job a month ago, rather than two years, I don't have to ask them if they are up to date. They were functioning in the field. I know this is really hard because every person wants to be looked at like an individual. The truth is, that's not the case. If I don't hire someone, they aren't anything more than a piece of paper and fifteen minutes of time. When I don't hire them, I'll probably never see them again and I don't loose sleep over whatever problem makes them less than a good candidate.

tazzygirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:13:01 PM)
How do you check when so many businesses have gone under?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:16:31 PM)
I just thought of a new business. I will start a company or several actually with good names for each particular industry. I will then "hire" wink wink, you as a independent contractor, and for this service you just have to pay a nominal monthly fee ( we can figure out a "legal" way to collect this). When you fill out your app, just put you are working for cybordyne Engineering INc (or any of the dozen other companies to select from). working on something related to the job you are interviewing for. When they call, I will say all kinds of glowing things about you, and act really disappointed that you are leaving. How about 100/month. Now, you can stay employed!!!!, Now, you won't actually make anything, so maybe you can still collect unemployment benefits, and as a bonus the unemployment rate will go down as I'll be "employing" 100's of thousands!!!!, Obama might even give me some grants for helping the nations unemployment crisis. [:D]

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady In my case, with my health issues, I fully understand an employer's reticence to hire me (if I were able to return to work). As an employer, I would look at someone with chronic health problems as high risk, regardless of my 20 years experience. That's so sad. Usually, the people with chronic health problems need employment the most. I couldn't imagine trying to work while going through chemo and radiation or recovering from multiple surgeries. Many people, even cancer patients undergoing treatment don't qualify for temporary SSDI in the US. For unemployed people with chronic life threatening health conditions and no husband or family to support them, committing a crime is often the best option. Prison = a roof, 3 meals, and health care. Most developed countries take better care of their citizens. The US really sucks.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl How do you check when so many businesses have gone under? I mean no offense here, but now you're asking 'how much work do I really want to do'? How many calls am I willing to make? This is part of why so many of the bigger companies have shifted their hiring practices to what many people know as "employment" or "temp" agencies. The racket is that they do the pre-screening. The grunt work, if you will. They verify the references, do the pre-employment drug screening, etc and that's all they do. For this, the company has them under contract to send candidates and as a go between, they have a fat contract. Half of the time, they are getting paid on both ends because they get a certain fee from the company for every employee they send, plus they collect fees from every employee during the probationary period. If I was in the mofia, I couldn't come up with a better scheme.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:42:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Before I get ahead of Myself, the phrase "looking at a person's 1040" is a short cult term as to looking at their verifiable work history. It just means that I've checked their references and I've talked to someone who had that person on their payroll. No under the table jobs that they are trying to pass off as legitimate employment. Fair enough. I don't know hiring "cult" terms. quote: In My opinion, you may be making a mistake. I'd rather have somebody with five years current experience in the field than a new grad any day. If they left their last job a month ago, rather than two years, I don't have to ask them if they are up to date. They were functioning in the field. It depends on what field you are working in, really. But obviously a resume for someone who has been unemployed, yet talks about what they have done to stay current in their field should mean something. Yet the reality is, it doesn't based on what you are saying. You look at a resume and key immediately in to the "last date of employment." quote: I know this is really hard because every person wants to be looked at like an individual. The truth is, that's not the case. If I don't hire someone, they aren't anything more than a piece of paper and fifteen minutes of time. When I don't hire them, I'll probably never see them again and I don't loose sleep over whatever problem makes them less than a good candidate. It isn't a matter of simply wanting to be looked at as an individual. It is wanting a fair shot. If you interview two applicants, one who has longer term unemployment and one who is currently working, then feel the currently employed is more qualified, that's one thing. Basing who will get an interview purely on who is working and who is not is not only selling the applicant short, it can often be an injustice to the company you work for since you could very potentially miss out on the better employee.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625