[ol]
[li]Unemployed, who are presumably highly motivated and know that the market rate is a bit on the low side. And who may not be entirely ungrateful when the market picks up again and good people gets harder to recruit.[/li][li]Already employed, who will have to be enticed to leave the security of an existing job. Oh, and we’re de facto selecting those who’ll jump ship when something better comes up.[/li][/ol]
So with the pool of qualified unemployed at historic heights, the obvious answer is to outbid your competitors for anyone willing to take off for the better deal.
It does fit in with my personal opinion on most HR departments’ take on hiring - they’ll do anything to match requirements to applicants, as long as it doesn’t involve actually understanding said requirements nor how to match them to applicants’ qualifications.
Much easier to cut down the pool by dumping resumes on things like typos, or bad layout, or - as in this case - by insisting that only those already employed apply. It cuts down the numbers, fast - and that seems to be the major consideration.
This is par for the course in the sales world. Half the recruiters in my network send me job reqs with the tagline “only currently employed” or something like that.
I think some of this is recruiter laziness - the “currently employed” status being something of a shortcut towards an honest eval.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. (I hate when that happens.)
The practice doesn’t affect the unemployed pool of people at all. If company A hires only employed people, and finds one at company B, then there’s an opening at company B. It only affects you (the generic you, individualized down to this specific situation) if you wanted to work at company A and can’t or won’t work at company B, or if company B decides to eliminate the position. But if that happens, it’s the whole economy that’s at fault, not the fault of one employer. especially if the practice becomes a trend.
Although the advertising part of it doesn’t seem really “nice”, if the company were screening out people who aren’t currently employed, they would do that anyway in the interview process and potentially waste the prospective employee’s time by making them go to an interview that they know won’t go anywhere.
I’m pretty sure that a textbook case of collusion would require that actual collusion be taking place, such as if the two companies each agreed to blacklist employees of the other company. Two companies trying to screw each other over by poaching each other’s employees aren’t colluding.
Hiring only persons who are already employed is not a formal policy at my workplace. It is, however, the informal policy of at least three other managers in my group. I’ve thought about making waves about it, but I’m fairly certain that if it comes to it, I’ll not only lose the argument but also find the policy being implemented on a formal basis.
But what happens when not only Company A, but Companies B, C, D, E, F, etc. all start adopting this practice? Especially considering that you don’t have to look at all businesses, just businesses within a specific industry in a specific locale, perhaps. Once they all, or even a majority of them, adopt this practice, they simply contribute to unemployment. Even if a few companies hire unemployeds, that simply causes a bottleneck. A takes from B, B takes from C, C takes from D, D hires out. D gets swamped with applications, rather than the applications being spread among all four companies. D eventually cuts off all unemployed applications just to prevent the headache. Circle continues.
Of course it’s not the fault of any one company. But if it starts being adopted en masse it’s going to become a real problem.
Maybe someone outght to step in and be some sort of an “employer of last resort,” if you will. That way, people would be able to truthfully answer in the affirmative (in much the same way that the existence of a public transportation system allows an applicant to truthfully answer the question “Do you have reliable transportation?”) when it comes up.
Why is it assholish to restrict the applicant pool to the currently employed?
What do you mean by “it’s going to become a real problem”? Please be specific. I think you’ll see the problem with your thinking as you work through the scenario.
Maybe someone ought to step in and be some sort of an “issuer of master’s degrees of last resort,” if you will.
Why? The situation as described doesn’t say that the Help Wanted ads are explicitly excluding people without Master’s Degrees; it says they are explicitly excluding people without jobs.
I sincerely wish that everyone with that attitude had to spend some time unemployed through no fault of his or her own.
Last time the job market was this bad, I came across an article by an HR consultant advising employers to treat people who had been laid off as though they’d been fired for cause. His logic? If the employee was any good, the company would have found some way to keep the employee. Therefore, if the someone was laid off, it was only because the he or she wasn’t actually worth employing.
I’ve often wondered if this attitude is simply some people’s way of dealing with their own anxiety. If someone can convince himself that only fuckups and idiots get laid off/downsized/rightsized, then he can tell himself that he need not worry about his own job. After all, he’s got a job, he must be a good person, therefore he’ll keep his job, he’ll continue to be a good person, etc.
First, on the specific point, I think the employer is simply willing to risk not hiring the unemployed person who would be great for the job out of the belief that currently employed people are better prospects. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing this.
Second, on the broader point, I think the whole “just world theory” thing is like the concept of “political correctness”–it only exists for the purpose of condemning it. No one really believes in the just world theory–it just gives those with a certain mindset a nice strawman to beat on.
An employer puts out an ad looking for applicants for a job. The ad lists certain things that the employer feels are minimum qualifiers for applicants. The current minimum qualifier being discussed in this thread is that the applicant be currently employed. And several people are getting the panties in a bunch about it. And you suggested that there should be some way for everyone to be able to truthfully answer in the affirmative.
A different minimum qualifier that an employer could put into an ad is that the applicant have a Master’s Degree. In that case, do you think there should be an issuer of Master’s Degrees of last resort so everyone can truthfully answer in the affirmative? Why or why not?
But companies come up with all sorts of bizarre hiring patterns all the time.
I have worked for companies that do almost ZERO training or promotions. Every time a job comes open, there isn’t the slightest thought of promoting or training someone internal for the job. It has to be someone outside who has the expertise. It’s kind of the Not Invented Here Syndrome where they refuse to recognize the value or growth capacity of their own people because they’re stuck in the mentality of Person A Goes In Job B FOREVER.
I’m currently working in a place where they may post internal jobs externally - pretty much because it is a corporate requirement - but there is NO chance they’ll hire someone from outside. Nope, the Directors who hire for these positions are going to hire their internal pets, regardless of how much at variance the alleged job requirements are from the actual experience levels of the people they want to hire. (Then they completely ignore the >100% annual turnover in these unqualified Supervisors, which astonishes me. Post up for 3-4 years of industry experience and 1+ years of supervisory experience, then hire 18-20 year old kids with zero supervisory experience who have been on the job for 3 months, then don’t bat an eye when they don’t last six months on the job? How does this Director still have a job?)
I worked in a company that was really good about promoting people, but for a NIH manager who insisted on hiring consultants every time something new had to be done. Myself and another person were essentially working part time, spending the rest of the day cooling our heels waiting for more work, and this clown decided he had to bring in consultants to do the job. Fortunately, my co-worker and I were able to convince HIS boss that we were more than happy to train ourselves in the tool and do the work.
Absent the revelation that Master’s programs in a significant number of universities are kept closed to people who do not already possess a Master’s degree, I’m going to say I don’t think the world would benefit materially from the existence of an Issuer of Master’s Degrees of last resort.
I’m still not prepared to discard the “you-being-some-kind-of-an-idiot” hypothesis.
I can see the logic in this. But I still think these people are kind of shooting themselves in the foot. Check out this quote from the story:
So they’d rather hire a person who’ll jump ship from an otherwise good job when someone waves a slightly higher salary in front of them, than a talented person who’ll be thrilled at the prospect of working their ass off for a halfway decent wage.
OK, I got it, you are apparently hooked on the “catch-22” aspect of the requirement. That seems like an odd thing to focus on to me. It’s not like these ads are for entry-level jobs, where someone shouldn’t be expected to be currently employed.
I’ve thought about making waves about it, but I’m fairly certain that if it comes to it, I’ll not only lose the argument but also find the policy being implemented on a formal basis.