So wrong.

"In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."
In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.
"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."



Read the full article here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co m/2010..._n_600665.html

What's so bad about that? Just go get a temporary job at McDonalds and then apply away .

Now if McDonalds would actually hire me in the first place... =.=

Originally Posted by JEFF_CHAN

Now if McDonalds would actually hire me in the first place... =.=

ahahah I feel your pain....... ive been waiting for a call from ANYONE.

I think it's bad because it implies that there's something wrong with you if you're not employed. It's actually a really bad decision on the part of the company. They could be passing on the best employee for the job because that person happens to be unemployed.

Their explaination for this is "A lot of people are applying and we have to go through a lot of resumes". Laziness isn't an excuse for discrimination.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Their explaination for this is "A lot of people are applying and we have to go through a lot of resumes". Laziness isn't an excuse for discrimination.

Question: Have you ever done any kind of HR work?

Originally Posted by lorend

Question: Have you ever done any kind of HR work?

She is completely right though, even though going through all those resumes would be a waste of time in most considerations, they are definately not doing the right thing by discriminating again those who are unemployed.
They could easily be passing up someone who would be incredible in the job position, and take the company further than it is... and they just happen to be unemployed because the company they were working for went under... or because they had to move across the country to take care of their sick mother and now is looking for a job closer to her....
it seems extreme, but its true...

That doesn't really make any sense to me. If someone is happy in their job, they're probably less likely to accept the job offer than someone who doesn't have a job. I have a friend who was constantly applying for jobs even though she was already employed to see if "anything better" came along. When ever she got offers, she always turned them down even if they were offering her something better because she didn't want to leave her friends from work. I know she might not be the norm, but they're still likely to come across those types of people.

Why not sort through resumes based on who has the skills to do the job?

Originally Posted by lorend

Question: Have you ever done any kind of HR work?

My supervisor does the hiring on my work, and he has me sorting resumes (not reading or interviewing people, just sorting). There's a lot, but I don't think he'd be impressed if I said "Can we not let anyone apply unless they have blonde hair?"

I'm sure these companies are getting TONS of resumes. But this isn't the way to go about getting less. Being unemployed has absolutely nothing to do with the job they are hiring for, so it shouldn't matter if the applicant has a job or not.

Originally Posted by AlienSummer

That doesn't really make any sense to me. If someone is happy in their job, they're probably less likely to accept the job offer than someone who doesn't have a job. I have a friend who was constantly applying for jobs even though she was already employed to see if "anything better" came along. When ever she got offers, she always turned them down even if they were offering her something better because she didn't want to leave her friends from work. I know she might not be the norm, but they're still likely to come across those types of people.

Why not sort through resumes based on who has the skills to do the job?

Exactly. Wouldn't these companies want someone who is "loyal"? I feel weird letting a company know I have a job if I'm applying to a position with them. If I'm willing to up and leave my current job with no notice, who's to say I won't do the same to them?

(Not that there's anything wrong with taking a better job, but wouldn't companies be looking for the type of person who stays?)

The thing is, if the company didn't get better results than what they were getting before they implemented this, they would stop. So while its technically possible that they would miss out on someone spectacular, the benefits of only interviewing people who are interested enough in this position to leave their current one are much greater.

I think the main type of resumes they are trying to cut out though are from people who just aren't qualified for the position. I read a really interesting article a while ago that because of the high unemployment any place with openings was getting flooded with applications. However, most openings were for jobs that had really specific requirements (ie nursing and engineering positions). Employers were getting hundreds of applications for people who just didn't have the needed experience. This seems like a great way to make sure that you have people who are actually qualified applying, rather than people who are just applying for whatever job they can because they are unemployed.

It definitely sucks for people who are both qualified and unemployed, but the benefit to the company is really obvious.

This is obviously a tactic to weed out lazy and unmotivated people; if you're unemployed and feel you're qualified for the position, go ahead and apply.. its not like you'll write on your resume in bold 18 point font HI, I'M UNEMPLOYED.

Do your research, make a proper cover letter, apply, and get the job!

Originally Posted by rcrw88

This is obviously a tactic to weed out lazy and unmotivated people; if you're unemployed and feel you're qualified for the position, go ahead and apply.. its not like you'll write on your resume in bold 18 point font HI, I'M UNEMPLOYED.

Do your research, make a proper cover letter, apply, and get the job!

Interesting. I hadn't thought of this.

Originally Posted by rcrw88

This is obviously a tactic to weed out lazy and unmotivated people; if you're unemployed and feel you're qualified for the position, go ahead and apply.. its not like you'll write on your resume in bold 18 point font HI, I'M UNEMPLOYED.

Do your research, make a proper cover letter, apply, and get the job!

Most resumes list your work experience chronologically with some kind of date. While you won't have "I'm unemployed" written on there, it's probably pretty easy for employers to see that you're not currently working and haven't been since [whatever time period].