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

LafayetteLady -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 5:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 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. Actually, the majority of head hunting firms don't collect from the employees, not during the probationary period or any other time. I worked as a "temp" by choice from the time I was about 19 until around the age of 30. I started when it was more profitable to work "temp" than it was to be a "permanent" employee. I made twice the wage permanent employees made. I also had more than twice the number of software packages on my resume, all thanks to temping. Many temp or "contract" agencies offer their employees medical benefits, paid vacation, bonuses, raises. Essentially everything a permanent employee at the company gets. The agency's goal is indeed to pre-screen employees for you, and although your company is paying them, they work to keep their data base full and if they weren't placing applicants, no one would use them. People who frequently use head hunters and temp agencies to find their positions know who works for you and who doesn't. The ones who don't, word spreads quickly and people don't want to use them.

Real0ne -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 6:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The way we take care of the unemployed in a free society, as opposed to a nanny-state, Orchid, is by promoting an environment of economic growth and recovery. you dont really think this is a "free" society do you? Well unless you are using the feudal definition, then I agree.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 6:13:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Fair enough. I don't know hiring "cult" terms. I'm sorry. That is a typo. I said "cult" instead of "cut". Would you care to forgive Me? quote: "last date of employment." Date of "most recent experience, really. As for the rest, I know you'd like it to, but it doesn't. Let's say I work for a fairly decent sized production plant. Means I hire and fire folks of all levels. Production, engineering, maintenance, etc. My job is to fill a slot. Not to be up on the most recent article that they might have read that they can quote Me. I want to know what a person can prove. Not what they've read. quote: 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. Two different goals. You, the applicant, wants a fair shot. Do you know what HR wants? They want the hiring process to be over, get the opening filled, with hopefully the person that is least likely to make them go through the process again. Remember in this little scenario, I'm HR. At least 80% of My time needs to be dedicated elsewhere. Record keeping, employee complaints, PTO, workman's comp, OSHA requirements and training, on and on and on. The job is company first. Not the applicant.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 6:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Actually, the majority of head hunting firms don't collect from the employees, not during the probationary period or any other time. I worked as a "temp" by choice from the time I was about 19 until around the age of 30. I started when it was more profitable to work "temp" than it was to be a "permanent" employee. I made twice the wage permanent employees made. I also had more than twice the number of software packages on my resume, all thanks to temping. Many temp or "contract" agencies offer their employees medical benefits, paid vacation, bonuses, raises. Essentially everything a permanent employee at the company gets. The agency's goal is indeed to pre-screen employees for you, and although your company is paying them, they work to keep their data base full and if they weren't placing applicants, no one would use them. People who frequently use head hunters and temp agencies to find their positions know who works for you and who doesn't. The ones who don't, word spreads quickly and people don't want to use them. Temp employees (production workers) used to make $10.25. However, they didn't really get that wage. Nearly a third of what they were 'supposedly' paid was funneled off in fees. Yes, you can absolutely purchase medical insurance, etc through the temp agency, but you're not on the 'employer on site's' plan. You are under provisions such as workman's comp, etc because being on their time clock makes them liable for on site injuries and accidents. The contract itself is a flat fee. My realm of experience is in working with those that also had a staffing clause. That's where the additional payment comes from. It looks like the company is paying, but they really aren't. It's the employee putting in the man hours that really pays it. Almost like a commission. If they work, you (the temp agency) get more money. If that fee didn't exist, they would really make that $10.25 instead of a paycheck that looks like they are bringing home $8.50. On the surface, it looks like the temp worker is actually getting more take home pay. It's not necessarily true. Has to do a lot with what selections one person might have for deductions rather than another. Stock options, company matched 401k, group sponsored HMO, and other electives. Anyway, this is far from the original. (Sorry, Rich.) The bottom line is that an employer is going to hire whoever looks best. In the end, that's the truth.

thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 6:50:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 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.[/c] Thank you for your candor 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. But you do assume (with no evidence) that they have become a couch potato while they were unemployed. 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. I have not suggested in any fashion that it was charity so why would you bring that up? 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. So your employer must rely on your opinion that those not interviewed were couch potatos and not current on their skills and not on any statistical data that would help to validate your opinion. 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. You do because you have stated so. There are twelve other people just like you waiting for that fifteen minutes across the desk who are trying to make an impression. I should think with unemployment in the 10%range there would be more than a dozen people in line for the same job 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. Odds based on your opinion that people who are unemployed for an extended period of time become couch potatos and loose their skills

LafayetteLady -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 7:26:55 PM)
If you are paying the agency 10.25 for the employee, yes, they are probably making about 8.50. I didn't work production. Back in the 80's, the employer was paying upwards of 25 bucks and hour for my services. Of that, I took home (before taxes of course, damn IRS) more than 18 an hour. Of course, I didn't have the benefits that the employer offered their permanent employees. However, the employees in the same position as I was in were making, before taxes, less than 10 bucks an hour. As a young person in good health, I of course, didn't think about medical benefits, lol. When I was older and had my son and needed them, I wasn't paying any more than the company I contracted with charged their employees. I was lucky, I was with a great agency. Most people have the wrong impression of "temporary" or "contract" employees. They usually look at them as people who are taking temp positions only until a permanent position comes up, or someone who can't "cut it" as a permanent employee. While many people do use it as a stepping stone for a permanent position or something they do until they find the right job for them, many people choose to work for temporary agencies because it fits their lifestyle best. For a person who is married and their spouse had good benefits, temping offered them freedom they couldn't get as a permanent employee. When my son was young, I was able to take time when necessary to take care of him. My ex-husband was a teamster and had awesome benefits. Before I was married, I was young and enjoyed the freedom of being able to take a couple of weeks off between assignments to do what I wanted. I was still employed by the agency and still had a "continuous" employment record. Use to be, as you know, the agency vetted everyone. For short term assignments, they just sent someone in to do the job who was qualified. Frequently now, employers are looking to interview people who are only going to do an assignment for a couple of days. When I started, if an employer wanted to interview the contract employee, they paid for their time, and for long term or indefinate assignments, an interview made sense. For a one day assignment? They are paying the agency to find the right fit. Regardless, as to the topic, the fact remains that an unemployed person is not less qualified, less reliable or less anything other than less employed. I'm not talking about them having subscriptions to relevant media to keep up on their skills. I'm talking about resumes that indicate they were taking relevant seminars and classes and gaining certifications while unemployed. Something like that shows they are serious about what they are doing and not sitting home waiting for the phone to ring. With the current economy, if people can't find employment, they end up needing to receive assistance. That doesn't help the economy recover at all. Houses all over are going for short sale or foreclosure because people can't pay their mortgage due to unemployment or underemployment. Yet, landlords are raising rents with the concept that they can "demand" higher rents because people need a place to live. At the end of the day, the economy needs people to be able to work to recover. Unless something is done to give them the opportunity to even get their foot in the door in hopes of a position, things are going to continue to go downhill very quickly.

mons -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 7:45:57 PM)
Ladypact hello I have learn through working at a elem..school the worst teachers were the ones whom got up bright and early and were the most dangerous! One teacher was always there never missed a day but she was a "physotic" she hit and took drugs in front of the children, yes I report her to, for years oh she was spoken too and everything would be fine , but she would return to the same monster!! When she called me the n word out of nowhere, hitting the kids, spaced out, as i wrote my report the the principal, wonder of wonders they got me just as i was in a medical problem, which severals other teachers got some die some did not1 They got rid of me, I was so stunned and i was told 'if you had not gone over my head i would had helped you" She was a nut she did things to this day made me know she was a nightmare waiting to happen! they came to me and told me "we are so glad you reported her but when it came time to stand by me, they had their jobs to hold and I understood this!!! So someone whom is there everyday and on time does not make a saint! oh ladypact I do love you posting i read them when i get a chance! But this is one instant of job 'trash" that made true teachers look bad! I know other whom work hard and also who do make it becasue they come everyday but then again someone whom has been out of 'work is ready to work so much more also! It works both ways! lady pact I have been reading many of your post and reply's you rock my dear for sure! You always come back with such wonderful answer to some of the best, thanks so for being here!!!!!! mons/jane

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 7:46:56 PM)
When I first heard about this so called protection for the long term unemployed, I admit I was surprised to think that the long term unemployed were suddenly going to be a protected class. But when you look at what "protection" they are being offered, it is pretty much of a joke. First, employers can't include a reference in their ads that they will only hire currently employed people (I am paraphrasing of course0. Second, they will be prohibited from not hiring someone for the SOLE reason that they have been unemployed. Big fucking deal. As someone who hires people for my firm, I can tell you that it isn't hard to find SOME distinction between two candidates other than that one has been unemployed and the other not. This is so ephemeral as to be no protection at all. I think it is extremely cynical for Obama to have included it at all, since it is so meaningless. I think it is equally cynical for conservatives to be acting like these provisions will someone affect companies' profits or right to make hiring decisions. But then, conservatives love to demonize the long term unemployed, as well as public employees, unions, and people who have the nerve to want to collect social security.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 8:08:10 PM)
Oh and Kevin, you trying to pin Ireland's economic problems on American companies is pretty hilarious. Your country did a pretty good job of fucking up their own economy, without any help. Irish real estate developers managed to create over development and a housing bubble that rivaled that in the US. On top of that, your own politicians got the bright idea for the Irish government (meaning the Irish taxpayers) to guarantee all the debts of the country's biggest banks. 34 billion euros to Anglo Irish Bank alone, in fact. You can blame the US if it makes you feel better, but you would be unemployed AND stuck with the bill for stupid financial decisions without our help. As for this quote: 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 you might want to consider that a country who is going to have to raise taxes to the level that Ireland is going to have to because of these guarantees is not a hospitable place to do business. Your country has huge problems, just not the ones you seem to think they do. It isn't just a little ropey for you guys, it is a catastrophe

DomKen -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 9:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what would have happened if that employer had refused to hire you because you were unemployed? I didn't move to "a job," Ken. I moved to an environment where there were "jobs." You seem to have misread the question. Please try again.

TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 10:08:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Because she was driving kids.... not packages potentially worth lots of money. Oh, I think the school bus cargo is infinitely more valuable than any package that might be on a Fed-Ex, truck, Tazzy. I meant the liability risk of being at fault in an accident. Thompson, I think you understand the business of driving better than your question would indicate. Both may be delivery jobs at the root, but they are different worlds. How often do we see a school bus driver get out and run? How often do we see a Fed-Ex van stopping for the railroad crossing? It's the difference between hauling hazmat, and delivering pizza. Take somebody who isn't already sharp with running bigger vehicles, put them into the stress of learning much more complicated routes, on an a far more intense kind of pace, while double parking and leapfrogging that rig through weird little parking lots... It's a buyer's market, and insurance is expensive. Current skills are a better bet.

TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 10:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what would have happened if that employer had refused to hire you because you were unemployed? I didn't move to "a job," Ken. I moved to an environment where there were "jobs." You seem to have misread the question. Please try again. I read your question just fine, Ken. I would have gone someplace else. I went around to a number of places, before impressing the hell out of a guy, with my positive attitude, and my recent emloyment history might very well be the reason somebody else never called. Their loss. I took my skill set into a better market. This isn't a monolithic practice. The companies that do it lose out on some damned good people, to the companies that don't. We need more jobs, not more regulations on how to fairly dole out the few there are.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 10:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Would you mind terribly if I don't go quote by quote? I'm afraid I just don't have the time. Any kind of formal education is something an employer is already going to know. I should already have that information from the application process. My comment was more related to what LL was saying regarding "personal" circumstances of why a person was out of work. (Caring for an ailing parent, their own medical issues, etc.) You might run across a person hiring that is going to put some points in your favor because you've been through a rough patch, but that doesn't mean there still isn't a score. I'd rather have the person with the work history.

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 11:32:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Of course, I didn't have the benefits that the employer offered their permanent employees. However, the employees in the same position as I was in were making, before taxes, less than 10 bucks an hour. As a young person in good health, I of course, didn't think about medical benefits, lol. When I was older and had my son and needed them, I wasn't paying any more than the company I contracted with charged their employees. I was lucky, I was with a great agency. This one is a bit off topic, but I used to tell people that this was one of the biggest mistakes they can make. Especially true if they were counting on medical insurance through their spouse. Here's the problem. If the spouse's job goes under, you're screwed until the next open enrollment period. By law, they have to offer your spouse the option to continue to purchase that insurance, but without the employer contribution, that is a huge expense for people who just went from two incomes to one income and unemployment. The premiums alone will put you under. That's without anybody even being sick. We were all Superman when we were young, weren't we? [;)] Twenty years later, we all know what not having insurance can really do to a person's life. quote: Most people have the wrong impression of "temporary" or "contract" employees. They usually look at them as people who are taking temp positions only until a permanent position comes up, or someone who can't "cut it" as a permanent employee. While many people do use it as a stepping stone for a permanent position or something they do until they find the right job for them, many people choose to work for temporary agencies because it fits their lifestyle best. I'm in the minority here because I know what you're saying loud and clear. Give Me a temp that had been with Me thirty days on site and nine times out of ten, I'd probably rather have them than the permanent employees. Most temps, unless they've been with the agency for over a year, aren't entitled to vacation pay, sick time, and aren't relying on the fact that they have a permanent position. From where I was sitting, most of them just plain worked harder. Just the truth as I saw it. quote: For a person who is married and their spouse had good benefits, temping offered them freedom they couldn't get as a permanent employee. When my son was young, I was able to take time when necessary to take care of him. My ex-husband was a teamster and had awesome benefits. Before I was married, I was young and enjoyed the freedom of being able to take a couple of weeks off between assignments to do what I wanted. I was still employed by the agency and still had a "continuous" employment record. Aside from cringing at the spouse's benefits part....... (I do want to say that I'm glad that part was ok for you. I just saw too many cases where it really didn't and it turned people's worlds upside down.) You are absolutely right about the rest. Temp (not necessarily temp to hire) is great for that kind of freedom while maintaining a great paper trail. If you've got breaks between assignments, that can be seen as more favorable than short term permanent jobs. Technically, you still "work" for the temp agency even if you are between sites. quote: Use to be, as you know, the agency vetted everyone. For short term assignments, they just sent someone in to do the job who was qualified. Frequently now, employers are looking to interview people who are only going to do an assignment for a couple of days. When I started, if an employer wanted to interview the contract employee, they paid for their time, and for long term or indefinate assignments, an interview made sense. For a one day assignment? They are paying the agency to find the right fit. Yes and no. Production type assignments ebb and flow quite a bit. It's part of why temps are used in the first place. Each shift was more or less a casting call depending on what was actually going to be produced, how many lines were up, and whether there were orders to fill. During peaks, I'd have forty temps per shift. Low periods (near holidays especially) I might have five. I lost more temps because I couldn't provide hours more than anything. quote: At the end of the day, the economy needs people to be able to work to recover. Unless something is done to give them the opportunity to even get their foot in the door in hopes of a position, things are going to continue to go downhill very quickly. The problem is that so many people want their foot in the door. Finding qualified people just isn't that hard right now.

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 11:38:57 PM)
i like your comment here. Its bang on the money kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 11:51:11 PM)
i accept there was too much land rezoning, too much development, too much speculation and the ridiculous and unsustainable rise in property prices which was the Irish government's fault for allowing this to happen. But saying our country is not an hospitable place to do business is complete bullshit it is no more or less hospitable than any other country, we have one of the lowest corporation taxes in the world, we have an English speaking young and well educated work force, we have a service industry that rivals the best, our exports are currently roaring ahead, why would we not be an attractive proposition and oh i almost forgot, what was Lehman Brothers, the closure of which precipitated the crisis, oh yes it was an American company, not forgetting the sub prime in America which sent shock waves around banks all around the world crippling confidence in these banks and restraining lending big time, necessary lending to keep an economy float kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/9/2011 11:54:41 PM)
did you spank cane and face slap employees when they stepped out of line Lady Pact, i would love to be your employee just for one day just to be slapped by you with your gorgeous ring on, i love being slapped by a married Woman its so hot plus always more painful with the sapphire on . Delicious. Also were you a Domme in the workplace kevin

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 12:02:55 AM)
What a foolish and trollish type question to ask. [8\|]

LadyPact -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 12:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mons lady pact I have been reading many of your post and reply's you rock my dear for sure! You always come back with such wonderful answer to some of the best, thanks so for being here!!!!!! mons/jane Thank you so very much, mons. Always a pleasure.

lobodomslavery -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 12:05:41 AM)
Just curious thats all. Some HR managers mainly Women actually do this. i know one guy who got slapped at work by a Female supervisor, he wasnt expecting it but it was so so HOT, She was hugely GLAMOROUS too SEXY and VOLUPTUOUS, thats what i most miss about being in work, SEXY GLAMOROUS VOLUPTUOUS WOMEN, im going to my psychiatrist today, She is SEXY too and dresses SEXILY too, You are damn Voluptuous too Lady Pact and seriously glamourous kevin

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875