It’s that in the current economy/job market, an adverse employment status is not as useful a marker of candidate suitability as it might be during better times.
What, you didn’t catch on that the “catch-22” aspect was why people thought it was an interesting topic for discussion?
Hypothesis confirmed, I guess.
They may tell themselves that. Or they may have an internal culture where poaching other companies employees is treated as something of a Sport, with internal prestige, respect and rewards based on how well you do this, without regard for how well it works out in the long run.
Well, again, these employers apparently have a different opinion than you on the subject. Hardly anything to get all huffy and puffy about.
The thing about Rand Rover is he’s the kind of asshole that thinks it’s okay to torture kids, based on the recent waterboarding thread.
This is small potatoes.
Doesn’t that cut both ways? Back when the economy/job market was rosier, an offer for which “the unemployed will not be considered” wouldn’t screen out much; when any moron could get hired, the fact that you were holding down a job meant little. To the extent that being unemployed now tells us less, doesn’t being employed now tell us more?
I guess kaylasdad99 et al are looking at the situation like this: You have to have a job to get a job–that’s a total catch-22!
But I think the better way to look at it is like this: You have to have a job to get THIS job. Just like you have to have a Master’s Degree or relevant experience or whatever to get certain other jobs. So, no big deal.
In my experience, that hasn’t been true. Interviewers always seem suspicious when I’m interviewing even though I’m currently employed. The line of questioning always seems to go, Why are you looking for jobs if you’re getting along OK in the one you have? You must be hiding something bad.
All it tells us is that the employed person hasn’t been downsized YET. Even if it tells us more (the single data point “employed=true”), the more important question is, “Does it tell us something meaningful?” It seems to me that the answer is “No.”
I’m sure that’s real comfort for the guy with an engineering degree who can’t get a job at Starbucks because the powers that be there are afraid he’ll bolt as soon as the economy gets better.
I really wish they had an icon here of an exploding head.
Why do you think that employers should have policies best designed for the well-being of Mr. unemployed guy with an engineering degree?
This doesn’t follow. Say that companies A through F all adopt the policy. When they’re all done playing musical chairs with the existing employed people, there’s still 1 net new job out there that has to get filled by the pool of unemployed people. So at least 1 unemployed person will be hired. The practice didn’t contribute to unemployment, it just made the employment of the unemployed person take a little longer. But while they were playing musical chairs, they also increased the salary range of the position. People who are already employed generally won’t jump ship unless they’re offered at least as much, if not more, salary. By the time company F hires their person, the average salary range for the position is likely to have increased, which could potentially benefit the unemployed person.
Where will company D get their employee? The existing pool of employed candidates can only circle around so many times. Once the pool of existing candidates have all rearranged themselves, they’ll likely not play the musical chair game again since changing jobs within a few months won’t look good on their resume. At that point, the company still looking for help will have to look at the unemployed pool.
Of course, as I noted in my original post, this all assumes that the economy doesn’t get worse and that the unemployment rate doesn’t increase. If there are any net new jobs out there, there has to be an unemployed person who is filling the position at some point.
As Rand Rover pointed out, you’ll need to be more specific as to the source of this real problem.
But it’s more than that. People are thinking that all companies might adopt that policy and that EVERY job will be THIS job.
But realistically, that can’t happen if the unemployment rate is steady or declining. If the unemployment rate is increasing, then it doesn’t really matter since the employed person they hire could be the first to be laid off.
At least there’s the consolation that hiring only the already-employed leaves vacancies where they used to work. At some point, as the market improves, somebody will have to hire the unemployed.
I don’t like the guy either, but I’m going to have to ask for a cite for this. (And if it’s a long thread, PLEASE link to the specific post?)
Ha! When my dad was laid off about, oh, about twenty-some years ago, it turned out that his boss was committing some kind of insurance fraud. (Don’t ask me all of the details – like I said, it was twenty years ago, and I was only 11 at the time). So, in that case, it’s not like he could have done anything THERE. 
And when they check your references…? :dubious:
Like I said, it is a competition. They tell themselves they’re Hunting Superstars, and that they are benefiting their company by seeking ‘only the best of the best’. What they don’t look at is the turnover rate of those superstars, or the inflated salary and benefits they’re paying in order to get people in the door. Or how well those people actually perform once they are in the door.
So ultimately, they aren’t necessarily working in the best long-term interests of the company they work for. Rather they’re stroking their egos by making a competition of poaching workers from other companies.
On top of that some employers will not hire people with bad credit. So if you lose your job and your credit score goes down due to unpaid bills, you will have a harder time finding a new job, resulting in more debt and a lower credit score.
I wonder how long we are going to be asked to put up with this w/o finding effective ways to organize and fight back.
Hell, I’ll save TTR the effort. I fully support and endorse the US doing some things that some would call “torture” to some people that some would call “kids.” So there. Please start another pit thread if you wanna fight about it.
Or they don’t think any of those things actually occur.
Or they are.
So, an employer wants to hire people that they think would be the best employees, and you have a problem with this. What is your solution? I don’t see any possible solution short of state ownership of each and every business enterprise. Is that what you want?
Hey, I didn’t say I wanted to fight about it – I was wondering what thread he was talking about. I have no desire to get into yet another lengthy discussion about waterboarding again.
Oh please, not this horseshit again. Nobody here is saying that companies shouldn’t be allowed to do this. They’re well within their rights here. We’re just saying that they have extremely assholish (and some would say, with good reason, counterproductive) hiring practices and are the types of places we’d prefer not to do business with.
Well, the Wesley Clark part of your “we” sure does seem to be saying that companies shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
Also, the folks in my “we” think it’s not assholish or necessarily counter-productive and wouldn’t mind doing business with these types of places.