Just when I think Corporate America can’t sink any lower, they drop a socially unacceptable anchor that takes them deeper.
I was perusing the Finance section of the Yahoo website and came across an article supplied by Chris Isidore (senior writer for CNNMoney.com) entitled, “Out of Work Job Applicants told Unemployed Need Not Apply.”
I was shocked to learn the latest hiring practices being initiated into the corporate structure. A “headhunter” with a prominent employment agency was discussing the current trend in the industry.
It seems employers of today are refusing to interview applicants who are “presently unemployed.” Let me repeat, employers with viable positions that need to be filled in order to move their companies forward are refusing to interview candidates who are “presently unemployed.”
The reason given for this shift in thinking also does not sit well with me. If a candidate was released from a previous job, it probably was due to their position on the low rung of the performance ladder. In other words, a huge assumption is being made that their performance, or lack there of, is what produced their termination.
How can a potential employer know that if the job seeker isn’t granted an interview to plead his or her case?
I think this interpretation is skewed because it has been proven that employees who job-hop are more of a liability to an organization due to the time and energy expended to train them. In these economic times of high unemployment, people who have jobs are desperately trying to keep them, not get rid of them. So to offer employment opportunities only to people with jobs seems asinine.
What happened to the philosophy of “not kicking a man when he’s down”?
The plight of the jobless continues to dim. I thought subjecting people who were out of work for any period of time to credit checks was rock bottom.
Human capital experts say that it’s necessary if the position requires the handling of money. Okay, I’ll accept that; I don’t agree with it, but I’ll accept it.
But what about the non-money handling positions, for instance, in the maintenance and construction fields? If you’ve been out of work for a couple of years, there’s a pretty good chance that you wouldn’t have a stellar credit score.
And how can you restore your credit score if you’re not given the opportunity to interview for a position that would help pay your debt?
With so many companies downsizing, rightsizing and completely folding, whose performance record should really be evaluated?
When greed and ego danced the Enron tango, the company collapsed and taught hundreds of employees to do the unemployment shuffle.
So why would anyone believe these employees were inadequate in their positions? How could they be rejected and labeled “low performers”? If this is becoming the new norm, BP employees should start looking now before their company goes belly up!
What infuriates me the most about these unscrupulous tactics is that they are perfectly legal. Not ethical, but legal. And the irony of it all is the people being denied the privilege of interviewing will be the very ones targeted by marketing firms (at least until the unemployment checks run out) to satisfy the gluttony of the shareholders.
So tell me, Corporate America, what must a jobless person do to be employed by you?