Unemployed Need not Apply - is it fair to discriminate against the unemployed?
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
That said, it's almost certainly a bad idea to discriminate against the unemployed as a hiring policy. Since corporate loyalty went out the window, and the economy is currently in the toilet, the correlation between "applicant employment status" and "applicant competence" is quite low. Good people get laid off all the time, and if your company refuses to hire them ON THAT BASIS ALONE then you're almost certainly making a non-optimal decision. Hell, depending on your scruples the qualified currently-unemployed applicant might be a great find because you have more leverage when it comes to salary negotiation. Whether they are unemployed or moving on from their current job, skilled applicants are skilled applicants and it's stupid to refuse to consider them based on an antiquated notion that someone's employment status strongly reflects their worth. Give their application the same 30 second screening you'd give Joe Employed, and give them the same coding test or exercises, and if they stand out then they stand out. What do you have to lose?
Regardless, being laid off in a down economy means "you suck" to some people and, since everyone professes to only wants the "top 10%," that naturally excludes the unemployed. It's akin to being arrested: You wouldn't have been arrested (fired) if you weren't guilty (worthless as an employee).
For the record, I strongly disagree with this "theory," but that's how it's been explained to me from two small business owners.
It's perfectly reasonable that someone could be a very skilled ______ (gardener, banker, coder, nurse, chef, accountant etc.) and not be very skilled at office politics. It's perfectly reasonable that a person might have just suffered bad luck.
That's a long time on the bench.
Meanwhile, your marketable skills have eroded to the point that you no longer fit where you feel you should.
There is no definitive or provable correlation between employment status and ability.
While the employment market is quite flawed in this respect, it's certainly at least a little better than random.
Now, let's consider what happens in an economy with high structural unemployment. First, the pool of applicants for every job opening becomes much larger, pushing more and more businesses to employ quick, cost-effective filters to the applicant pool. Second, the new people who join this pool are the newly unemployed, who are less likely to be well qualified. Even worse, the people who can't find work stay unemployed, become more desperate, and apply for more jobs, including jobs they're not well qualified for.
As a result, there's a lower proportion of well qualified applicants among the unemployed applicants. Sure, there are well qualified applicants in there, just a lower proportion. Lower, even, than there would be if it wasn't for the high structural unemployment. But among the employed applicants, there are just as many well qualified applicants as ever. Also, the pool of already-employed applicants is much smaller than the complete pool of applicants.
What happens when you ignore applications from unemployed people? You go from a huge pool with a low proportion of well qualified applicants to a much smaller pool with a higher proportion of well qualified applicants. How is that not a win?
And I wouldn't discount this thinking out of hand, either. People generally do things for reasons and act upon the evidence that's available to them. I'm willing to bet that most of these companies that don't even consider unemployed applicants chose that policy because someone went through hundreds of hopeless applications from unemployed and completely unqualified people and decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Also, keep in mind that all I've done here is show how it could be rational and self-interested to ignore job applications from unemployed applicants. That's not the same as saying it's fair or morally right.
What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification?
If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications?
"Second, the new people who join this pool are the newly unemployed, who are less likely to be well qualified."
Why would this be true?
People who are not well qualified for their jobs tend to be the ones who lose their jobs. People who have been unemployed for a long time become increasingly desperate and apply to a lot of jobs they're not well qualified for. Well-qualified people tend to get hired quickly or at least hold onto the jobs they already have, so they spend less time being unemployed.
How is this not obvious? It's hard for me to believe you're asking these questions in good faith.
If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications?
Judging someone's qualifications is a difficult and expensive process. Determining whether someone is currently employed or not can be done by a cursory skim of a cover letter and resume. If you have 500 cover letters and resumes for a single job opening to go through and a full day of real work to do, are you going to schedule 500 interviews or are you going to use filters? But now I'm repeating myself.
Once again, I believe people should be judged on their qualifications - not their employment status. It's not a good indicator.
If 100 people all apply for one job, you can't afford to treat them as individuals. That's why you use filters. It's not perfectly fair, but on the other hand you're not entitled to five hours of a company's time just because you mailed them a resume. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
I understand your point, but rather than sifting through 100 CVs/résumés, setting up procedures where applications are submitted using scalable processes presents a far better solution than using crude filters such as employment status.
For example, if details are submitted via an electronic form, the submissions can easily be compared with a skills matrix / person specification to ensure that only relevant applications make it to the second stage of an application process.
That said, it looks like your proposed solution is still a probabilistic filter. So even by your standards you're still not treating people as individuals. Nor is it clear that your solution is any more cost-effective than the other approach.
I think if we were in person, we'd probably end up agreeing. Sometimes, loyalty to an originating point leads us all up paths that aren't totally worth defending.
I do however, genuinely believe that there's something bad about making generalisations. We all do it, I know - but in the workplace, when and if we're in a position to make a difference, we should.
This is where "fairness", in spite of how hard (and even dangerous) it is to define, does matter, because many people believe that a civilized society has an interest in enforcing some basic standards of fairness. The goal isn't to make life fair, which is impossible, it's to set a minimum standard.
For instance, auto insurance companies used to charge men under 25 more for car insurance than women. And it was very clear that males were more likely to result in a claim than women in this age group. However, does using this distinction violate basic standards of fairness? What if you could make a similar claim for a religious group? A racial group? An age group? People tend to differ on exactly where they draw the line, though almost everyone agrees that the line should be drawn somewhere.
Personally, I think that using employment status as a screen strikes me as unfair on a gut level, but I think it does exceed the basic decency standard. In other words, I don't think it should illegal, but I definitely don't like it.
I sincerely hope those that feel this way will never wield significant power as a lawmaker, a sentencing judge, a law enforcement officer or in any other position. Many terrible things have been done by people completely immorally following their own self interest. Just look at the arguments for and against slavery in the colonial era if you have any doubts.
Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview.
Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview.
While true in the abstract, how would you feel if couldn't get a job and people said, "We don't give jobs to your race. But aren't you glad you know so you don't waste time applying? And don't bother starting your own company, no one buys products from companies of your kind either. Better hope there's space in the welfare line."
While I may appreciate the time saved, I'd think it would be nice to be able to prevent this sort of practice from running rampant. Even if through some artificial measures like gov't contracts.
Racism is always irrational, and it's absolutely against the employer's long-term rational self-interest to let race impact employment decisions.
Refusing to hire the unemployed no matter what the circumstance is definitely irrational, but is that really what employers are doing?
People can use whatever metric they want for hiring, IMO. But when the metric is used as a means to get around other laws then its a problem (for example, a bank saying, "We won't hire people that listen to Lil Wayne"). I thought that's what the crux of the argument was about from the video.
What I'm saying is a racist would never say "I'm not hiring you because you're skin's [Whatever Color]". He'd just make up a legitimate excuse. And since everything other than race, religion and a few others is a legitimate excuse he could say anything and get away with it.
The only way to enforce an anti-discrimination law would be to definitively prove what's in that person's mind and we can't do that. So the law is unenforceable.
Given that a law just forces that racist person to interview even though he knows from the start that he's never going to hire you. Which is just a waste of his time and yours.
1) Racists should put up signs that say, "Coloreds need not apply?" Because that will save you time from applying there (if you were Black).
or
2) They should put up a sign that says, "If you haven't worn sunscreen in the past decade, you need not apply?" That way they effectively screen out Black people w/o having to seem racist.
or
3) They shouldn't say anthing, and presumably waste your time applying? (This seems to clearly not be what you're saying, but I through it in there for completeness).
Have I missed an alternative?
In any case, regarding discrimination cases, there are plenty that are actually won by employees. While you'd like to think racists and sexists are smart enough to at least keep their mouth shut, enough of them apparently aren't so.
I haven't seen a lot of race based discrimination in the tech industry (what I have is usually against Asian/Indians), but I've seen a LOT of sex discrimination. I've even written an affidavit on behalf of a woman, based on discussions I had during annual review with her manager.
So yes, it is hard to prove. And if they were smart, nearly impossible. But still doesn't mean the laws should be off the books or ignored.
The entire idea that racist should hide what they are is flawed in my opinion. I see far more advantages in knowing who and where they are.
This is also why I am _always_ in a job search (even though I've never been laid off). There is definitely a career "cost" that comes from the stigma of a lay-off. And it absolutely is the case that being unemployed is a strike against you in an employer's eyes even if they don't go as far as excluding you from consideration.
I wish employers would take a more intelligent approach to hiring. Until they do, good employees will jump ship at the first sign of trouble to avoid the risk of a lay-off.
As an anecdote, when I took my current job in October 2010, I was the only currently working applicant out of hundreds or so to apply for the job, and I'm the one who got it.
On the other if you hire a dud, your boss can easily regard it as your fault and look for mistakes you made.