Unemployed? Don't bother applying.

[civver_764]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.

Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.

"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."

Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.

After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.

But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.

"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.

She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.

"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.

It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.

"Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."

Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.

Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.

"It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

Another victory for capitalism and the private sector.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It's ok, they're not extending unemployment benefits past the 99 week mark so when that last check is deposited thinks will get interesting if a complete turnaround doesn't happen.

 

[NovaKart]

It's an outrage. My mother was laid off years ago along with a large part of her former company and she couldn't find another job for a year. There should be a law against openly excluding the unemployed but I guess it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. People will always come up with some other reason to exclude someone.

 

[Godwynn]

It's getting to the point where I'm considering rioting.

 

[Cutlass]

Another reason jobs for all should be a national priority.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It's getting to the point where I'm considering rioting.

worst case scenario, there's mass discontent, what do you see benefiting? The Right? The Left? Some apolitical demagogue?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Wow, I'm just thankful to be in a strong union. That's the only thing keeping me employed because my boss hates me (not my fault, honestly).

 

[dot]

It's getting to the point where I'm considering rioting.

Well, a proper riot might clear the air again. Or was that a thunderstorm? Ah, you get my point anway.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the upside, this neatly demonstrates that the American Dream is an always has been complete and utter bullcrap.

 

[civver_764]

On the upside, this neatly demonstrates that the American Dream is an always has been complete and utter bullcrap.

As if that will stop the bourgeois propaganda.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

On the upside, this neatly demonstrates that the American Dream is an always has been complete and utter bullcrap

Pretty much. Success isn't about how good you are so much as it is just knowing the right people. Example: Justin Bieber isn't so special from the countless teenagers singing on youtube, he just happened to meet the right people to make him a star.

 

[Traitorfish]

As if that will stop the bourgeois propaganda.

But it will make all that much easier to see it for what it was.

 

[emzie]

You lazies should just join the Army.

 

[civver_764]

You lazies should just join the Army.

I know right. Killing people is so awesome.

 

[Godwynn]

Well, a proper riot might clear the air again. Or was that a thunderstorm? Ah, you get my point anway.

I hear you Euro-commies have lower unemployment and higher economic growth in Germany than in the United States, do you want to marry me so I can get a job o'er there?

worst case scenario, there's mass discontent, what do you see benefiting? The Right? The Left? Some apolitical demagogue?

Honestly, I have no idea. I am super-enraged at the Right and mega-enraged at the Left at this point. Whoever can spin the discontent the best, which I guess will be the Right, but I have been wrong before.

 

[gangleri2001]

C'mon! You only have a 10% of unemployment. Come to Spain and you'll see what an unemployment rate of 20% and an unemployment rate for young people of 41% mean.

 

[Traitorfish]

I know right. Killing people is so awesome.

Aw, yeah, I bet I could bag me like fifty brown people!

 

[emzie]

I know right. Killing people is so awesome.

If you're not willing to take the job, you shouldn't be complaining when your unemployment is cut

 

[civver_764]

aw, yeah, i bet i could bag me like fifty brown people!

USA #1

If you're not willing to take the job, you shouldn't be complaining when your unemployment is cut

(not sure if serious...)No I just don't think I should have to resort to killing people to make a living.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

No I don't think I should have to resort to killing people to make a living

But it will solve the unemployment problem in two countries then.