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?
Recent Verlalia Lewis Articles:
- Tis the Season to Be Frazzled, Fa La La La La
- Bend, Stretch and Reach for the Sky
- Diseases that Know No Gender
- If Today Were Your Last Day On Earth, What Would You Say?
- Buddy, Can You Spare A Job?
I also read the article by Chris Isidore and was flabbergasted by the extreme faulty logic. It’s scary to think people with such low analytical and reasoning skills are running corporate America. Although, I know there are still some highly skilled corporate heads still out there because I am a testimony to that fact. I was unemployed after resigning from my employment with a company in Iraq. I spent 3 years working in Iraq, under a great amount of stress, when I finally decided enough was enough and it was time for me to take a break from overseas employment. I am without a doubt a very valued employee for whomever I work for. Fortunately when I returned stateside and began my job search, it wasn’t long before I was hired. I was hired based on my work experience and my professionalism which I’m sure my interviewers were able to see a small bit of it during my interview. I’ve been there over two years now and I have been able to show them just how valuable I am. Once again I feel I am a very valued employee. I received a very high rating on an performance evaluation I received this month. Had my company followed the flawed logic of hiring only people who are presently employed they would have missed the opportunity to benefit from my extensive experience, knowledge and professionalism.
I’m sure every single person who is presently employed can name at least one, if not many, co-workers who’s performance and attitudes are very poor. I know I can name a few. I would be perfectly happy to provide some of those names for recommendation for employment with those companies that want to only hire presently employed people. That sure would help my company out tremendously. Lol!
way to go! Name them all!
Excellent article. Another version of the “Catch 22”.
Excellent article and questions. I beg to share that we can also see in the employment arena the “good ole boy” system prevails and friends are hired versus the most qualified.