Unemployed? Don't bother applying.

[Lord Baal]

I wonder how much of this is brought on by people who don't really want a job giving crappy interviews so they can continue getting unemployment.

In my experience most people who seek unemployment don't give crappy interviews. They just don't show up to interviews.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Sure did get people to work fast, didn't it?

I figured out the solution to America's job woes...


Invade Poland and France.

But America could do that at the moment if it pleased.

America needs to start production again, I suggest invading China.

 

[MobBoss]

I just got approached last week with a possible civilian job offer that could have me making 100k plus if I retired to take it. Might just have to pursue that one to see where it leads.

 

[Dachs]

I just got approached last week with a possible civilian job offer that could have me making 100k plus if I retired to take it. Might just have to pursue that one to see where it leads.

everybody loves a double-dipper

 

[Immortal Ace]

Let's do this.

I'd be down for this.

 

[otago]

Hey it is not all bad, mate of mine has hired a couple of toolmakers out of the states who had been laid off, then any job offered was at less than half their old wages in their state to work as toolmakers.
Well trained toolmakers with fifteen years experience, but it seems they are not valued at home at this time.
Or,are so called blue collar workers not valued ?

 

[Mise]

How is it not illegal to discriminate based on employment status? It's just so completely irrational...

 

[Tee Kay]

 

[civver_764]

I don't know all the facts, and I'm sure there's more too this then meets the eye. Still, whatever company did this seems quite stupid...

They do have their rights to hire whoever they like however...

It's not just one company, it's becoming the tendency of the entire job market.

Let's do this.

Totally.

As for the "killing people" comments... I'll be the first to comment on the irony of people supposedly advocating small government encouraging the unemployed to sign up in droves for the military, but to say that joining the army means you'll go straight to the front is just ridiculous. There are plenty of jobs in the Army that do not involve combat.

But you'd still be directly supporting those who are killing.

I'll agree it's disgusting to automatically disqualify people simply for being unemployed though. At least give them the chance. If they suck, fire them.

Unfortunately yelling at them isn't going to do much.

I'm curious, how are the Scandanavian countries handling the global recession? They aren't quite as socialist as they used to be, but still more than the rest of Europe.

They were never socialist. Welfare /=/ socialism.

 

[Tani Coyote]

About as logical as "we should cut government spending as much as possible!"

"Well I'm unemployed, what do I do?"

"Join the military. "

I guess the military is funded and operated by the private sector now...

But you'd still be directly supporting those who are killing.

But if you're not directly doing the killing, what does it matter?

You have to cut responsibility somewhere...

For example. Anybody who pays taxes is directly supporting those who kill(and the government as a whole). This logic can't end well. You don't have to enlist to contribute to the war effort or the killing, as you describe it.

Main reason total war considers civilians as much a target as soldiers.

Unfortunately yelling at them isn't going to do much.

Yelling at the workers or employers?

If employers, don't yell. Force.

If workers, well, being served with a huge "you're fired" is the end of it.

They were never socialist. Welfare /=/ socialism.

Depends on the context you use socialism in. Maybe not according to a textbook or its believers, but socialism has very different meanings depending on who hears it.

Socialism can mean workers' democracy, a state on the transition to Communism, a mixed economy providing human services, or a collectivist system that is willing rather than forced. I have seen all four used. Some of them by textbook Communists!

It's better to address and summarily crush your opponent's critiques, rather than arguing semantics back and forth. Which is all the arguments boil down to anymore.

Rather than address why socialism or communism need not be dictatorial, everyone resorts to things such as "no state in Communism!" ...when it'd be far more productive to, rather than argue over the term(fruitless!), still debunk the person's critique.

/rant. Sorry. But this is something that has always bugged me. People are NOT going to change the usage of the term no matter how hard you try. Best to take their dictionary and use it to your advantage, instead of a fruitless argument over what terms mean.

 

[JerichoHill]

To the OP

This is occurring b/c overwhelmed HR departments are getting a hundred applications for 1 position. Most companies can't afford to interview 100 people for 1 position (heck, the government can't even do that).

Thus, certain criteria are used to shorten the list. Yes, it stinks. But what's the alternative?

The stimulus would have been better spent clearing away poor people's bad debts and encouraging more small business growth. The big banks and auto mfgs just had all the key players in the right place during their time of need.

Not exactly devil's advocate, but wiping out bad debt without doing something that caused the underlying problem smacks to me of just taking sudafed to mask a cold.

 

[Cutlass]

How is it not illegal to discriminate based on employment status? It's just so completely irrational...

This is America. Never have had strong labor laws. But there are other factors. Cheapness and laziness on the part of personnel officers, the fact that someone has a job is used as a proxy for whether or not they are a good worker.

I wonder how much of this is brought on by people who don't really want a job giving crappy interviews so they can continue getting unemployment.

Anyone in a job is better off then someone on unemployment. There is some that hold out for a time when the only jobs that are available are well below their skill level. But that's short term.

 

[Moonbat]

I'm curious, how are the Scandanavian countries handling the global recession? They aren't quite as socialist as they used to be, but still more than the rest of Europe.

Finland is a Baltic country but anyways quite similar to the Scandinavian countries. Unemployment is at 7,5% which is high but not quite as bad in the early 90s when it hit 20% as the Nordic model collapsed at its own impossibility. Employment is still over 70% which is fine. The deficit is huge and public debt keeps going up, it's at around 45% of GDP at the moment. But still Finland got a bit easy on this recession mainly because the economy had been running well before and the budget been managed decently with high deficits year after year.

What happens next is difficult to say. The social democrats want to raise taxes and spend it on silly employment politics. All they see are the jobs created by their policies and not the jobs they destroy. Silly silly policies. The socialists, not so sure about them, no one cares about them anymore except those still stuck to the 70s and they won't make the cabinet. The centre-right cabinet actually lowered taxes when the global economy started going bollocks and it probably helped a lot but it's hard to say because you can't really see the jobs that were spared as a result. The leftists of course would like the state to spend money on what's called "tricky employment" over here, meaning that the state pays their wages or part of it for doing something useless and unproductive, basically wasting tax money and creating unemployment elsewhere. The centre-right would like to cut spending after the next parliamentary elections in 2011 and raise certains taxes but maintain a flat tax on capital income while the leftists would like to make it progressive and increase spending by providing "free" day care for everyone for example, all of which would be batshit insane. The centre-right is moving more towards flat tax while the leftists want more progressive taxation. It's going to be an interesting election year anyway. There's also more and more support for the conservative leftwing populists, who are more left in economic issues than the social democrats but very much socially conservative. Anti-immigration groups and closeted racists are gaining support as well Finland being a strongly racist county.

 

[Disgustipated]

While this discrimination is wrong, how would you enforce it?

How could you prove you weren't hired because of your employment status? That's a little more difficult to prove than race/gender.

 

[Ajidica]

Finland is a Baltic country but anyways quite similar to the Scandinavian countries. Unemployment is at 7,5% which is high but not quite as bad in the early 90s when it hit 20% as the Nordic model collapsed at its own impossibility. Employment is still over 70% which is fine. The deficit is huge and public debt keeps going up, it's at around 45% of GDP at the moment. But still Finland got a bit easy on this recession mainly because the economy had been running well before and the budget been managed decently with high deficits year after year.

What happens next is difficult to say. The social democrats want to raise taxes and spend it on silly employment politics. All they see are the jobs created by their policies and not the jobs they destroy. Silly silly policies. The socialists, not so sure about them, no one cares about them anymore except those still stuck to the 70s and they won't make the cabinet. The centre-right cabinet actually lowered taxes when the global economy started going bollocks and it probably helped a lot but it's hard to say because you can't really see the jobs that were spared as a result. The leftists of course would like the state to spend money on what's called "tricky employment" over here, meaning that the state pays their wages or part of it for doing something useless and unproductive, basically wasting tax money and creating unemployment elsewhere. The centre-right would like to cut spending after the next parliamentary elections in 2011 and raise certains taxes but maintain a flat tax on capital income while the leftists would like to make it progressive and increase spending by providing "free" day care for everyone for example, all of which would be [word] insane. The centre-right is moving more towards flat tax while the leftists want more progressive taxation. It's going to be an interesting election year anyway. There's also more and more support for the conservative leftwing populists, who are more left in economic issues than the social democrats but very much socially conservative. Anti-immigration groups and closeted racists are gaining support as well.

I'm not saying you are lieing, its just you aren't the most objective person considering you lump socialism in with fascism and call it authoritarian freedom-hating collectivism, so I would appreciate another persons opinion.

 

[Rashiminos]

More meat for the 'tines I guess.

 

[Mise]

To the OP

This is occurring b/c overwhelmed HR departments are getting a hundred applications for 1 position. Most companies can't afford to interview 100 people for 1 position (heck, the government can't even do that).

Thus, certain criteria are used to shorten the list. Yes, it stinks. But what's the alternative?

You want alternatives? How about, remove from the shortlist any women of birthing age? Afterall, we don't want them giving birth and taking a year's maternity leave as soon as they join! Or how about ruling out the gays? You know, it might be disruptive to the other workers to have gays working amongst us. Or what about the elderly? We can't have them leeching money from the company health insurance scheme, what with their kidney failures and hip replacements. Or the young - my, why would I want to hire those irresponsible hooligans! Or the blacks - 3 times more likely to be convicted of a crime, 10 times more likely to go to jail...

There you go, 5 more completely rational, logical alternatives to discriminating based on employment status...

Seriously, what is the logic here? There are 100 qualified, experienced candidates for a position, but only 10 can apply -- so it's perfectly acceptable to whittle down the list using spurious pseudo-proxies for "employability" that are completely discriminatory and unjust? It makes no sense why anyone would support this being legal (barring, of course, those genetically predisposed to supporting completely irrational and unethical employment practices in the name of capitalism and "freedom"). We have labour laws for a reason!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Spoiler :

While this is, admittedly, pretty funny, not all companies are like this. The reason it sometimes happens is because the people that have the job have more experience, hence the assumption they are better, which isn't always true.

This is America.

This is a free country.

Never have had strong labor laws.

And a free country does not mix with a big government. More laws = more government = totalitarianism.

NOTE to anyone else listening in: I am using Cutlass's definitions of terms here, so if you use different definitions then you probably don't apply. Cutlass is someone that calls the entire right-wing totalitarians, so it made sense to use the word here.

Back at Cutlass- If you claim to be opposed to big government, you have to oppose it, everywhere. I oppose it almost everywhere, in economics and in most social issues. You oppose it in social issues but support it in economic. Therefore, you support bigger government then me. Freedom has never been about a big government.

But there are other factors. Cheapness and laziness on the part of personnel officers,

Well, it makes sense for them not to want to spend money.

the fact that someone has a job is used as a proxy for whether or not they are a good worker.

This is a valid point to a point. Most of the better workers have more experience, which means the newbies will have to take a lower wage and get experience. Granted, some are naturally very gifted, therefore everyone should be considered. But, Big Brother should stay out of it.

Anyone in a job is better off then someone on unemployment. There is some that hold out for a time when the only jobs that are available are well below their skill level. But that's short term

If you are going to keep the Welfare State (I'd much rather get rid of most of it) then you need to give some kind of incentive for people to take SOMETHING rather than nothing. For instance, say there is a job available for flipping burgers at McDonalds and two skilled workers who make $50 an hour normally (But are making, say, $1,000 a week on welfare) are looking for a job. Taking the job would actually be disadvantageous for them, which is silly by any standard.

While this discrimination is wrong, how would you enforce it?

This...

Seriously, what is the logic here? There are 100 qualified, experienced candidates for a position, but only 10 can apply -- so it's perfectly acceptable to whittle down the list using spurious pseudo-proxies for "employability" that are completely discriminatory and unjust? It makes no sense why anyone would support this being legal (barring, of course, those genetically predisposed to supporting completely irrational and unethical employment practices in the name of capitalism and "freedom"). We have labour laws for a reason!

Well, most of your things listed are immoral, you may not want to hire the elderly if its a job requiring physical strength or gay men for a job in a church, but mostly I agree with your position, morally. Legally however, its not the government's business. This is capitalism. This is freedom. This is America. And Europe's socialism can stay out.

 

[Moonbat]

I'm not saying you are lieing, its just you aren't the most objective person considering you lump socialism in with fascism and call it authoritarian freedom-hating collectivism, so I would appreciate another persons opinion.

Of course I'm not objective. Good luck finding a person who is objective in political matters. Socialism is very much like fascism. Show me a democratic socialist country and I'll show you a democratic fascist one. That's why they go up in arms and start a murder-spree like in 1918. The socialists and commies had their golden age after the lost war against the totalitarian imperialistic empire to the east, or workers paradise, and freedom of speech was banned and the paradise to the east heavily influenced and financed the dirty leftists. Only by the society going the authoritarian way, did the socialists gain support. Now the socialists are in deep decline and less than 10% of the population supports them, through democracy, they'll never reach their goals. Finland is freer than ever. We're finally free of the socialist prison.

Capitalism is the greatest socialism.

Bloody infraction points gonna get me banned.

 

[warpus]

Makes sense, someone who already has a job is 1538125x more employable than somebody who does not.

But how many applications to entry-level positions do companies get from people who already have a job? I'm going to guess that the answer to that question is "not many".

I'm also going to guess that the article is about people who are applying to senior and intermediate level positions - because "that's the kind of job they used to have and that's the sort of salary they expect". Wouldn't be surprised at all if there was some sort of an atmosphere of entitlement on the side of the applicants here...

Besides, it's tough, but that's capitalism. They are going to look for the best candidates - maybe set your sights a bit lower if you can't get any interviews..