Apparently, some companies aren't hiring people who are unemployed.
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."
Well, that's just very fuck you fantastic. People are happier when they are employed...no shit, Sherlock. I know people that have been out of work (in their field) for two years or more. So companies aren't even bothering to read their resume and qualifications if they aren't employed? What a load of shit.
Actually, what's really galling is that it is yet another example of the idiocy of this country. Do any of these companies understand that what is holding us back from a full recovery is the high rate of unemployment? That this fact is coloring the perception of bleak economic outlooks? And it's all because a bunch of Marie Antoinettes out there don't want to associate with the riff raff.
On a scale from one to dragon, how much does this irritate the shit out of you? For me, it's Red Dragon.
19 comments:
While this practice is irritating, it is definitely not good business practice. Like the article said, it leaves a lot of potential people with valuable skills out of contention. Not smart HR policy.
On the positive side, firms that don't have this policy are going to find a lot of good candidates.
"Do any of these companies understand that what is holding us back from a full recovery is the high rate of unemployment? That this fact is coloring the perception of bleak economic outlooks?" - Mark
These companies understand that we have a looter president and congress that have introduced massive debt and uncertainty in the market. That is what make companies hold the line on making investments to expand, including hiring.
Unemployment numbers don't drive economies, they are the result which is why it is a lagging indicator. A lagged economic indicator is one that does not change direction until a few quarters after the economy does. The unemployment rate is a lagged economic indicator as unemployment tends to increase for 2 or 3 quarters after the economy starts to improve.
I'm Super RED Dragon!!!
It is stupid and short-sighted. It may well end up that that company tanks if that kind of thinking is representative of how they run their business. You see, ultimately, the market does weed out bad businesses. Bad govt on the other hand...
On a scale from one to dragon, how much does this irritate the shit out of you? For me, it's Red Dragon.
That's hardly surprising. After all, you've made it clear that you consider it evil for someone to start, run, or (God help us all) succeed in a business for purposes like feeding your family or chasing a personal dream. For someone to pour the entirety of themselves into a business for years or decades for their own reasons is beyond selfish, all the way to evil in Marky World.
No, businesses should gladly sacrifice themselves on the altar of helping "The People". It's the usual unspoken assumption: The customers of a business are people. Those who wish they were customers but cannot afford to be are even more people. Union employees are people. But non-union employees, or investors and stockholders, or the business owner himself, and most certainly his family.... they aren't people, they can be punished with impunity and without guilt.
Sad.
It shows how lazy and opportunistic too many American businesses have become. It shows an underlying mindset in some companies that it's easier to steal or buy something than to develop it yourself.
This same trend can be seen from the raft of mergers and acquisitions over the past several years. Your business isn't able to compete? Use market manipulation and borrowing to buy out your competitor, alienate their customers and get a monopoly.
Large corporations (as opposed to mom and pop businesses and small S corps) enjoy huge government benefits and subsidies. The corner grocery store or the one-man window cleaning outfit doesn't owe anyone a job. But that car manufacturer that got a government bailout? That electronics giant that's getting huge tax breaks for R&D? Giant retailers who use the network of roads, rails, seaports and airports paid for directly or indirectly (through tax breaks) by local, state and federal government to support their gargantuan supply chains?
Those big companies do owe it to the American people to take that extra effort to hire people who have lost their jobs. And it's in their best interests to do so. Because the real engine of prosperity in this country is consumer spending. And if consumers don't have jobs, then consumers don't spend. And those big companies that depend on Americans buying their stuff will be the brake on recovery rather than its engine.
"That's hardly surprising. After all, you've made it clear that you consider it evil for someone to start, run, or (God help us all) succeed in a business for purposes like feeding your family or chasing a personal dream. For someone to pour the entirety of themselves into a business for years or decades for their own reasons is beyond selfish, all the way to evil in Marky World."
I've noticed that many on the right seem to equate the efforts of small business and true entrepreneurs who take real risks with their own money and lives, to the behavior of giant corporations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The CEOs of the vast majority of large corporations are not taking any risks. They are not chasing personal dreams. They are hired guns with golden parachutes. Guys like the CEO of BP are running organizations that have bigger budgets than many nations, and more employees than most states. They are every inch the bureaucrats that the right complains about in government, and their decisions can affect billions of lives, yet they are not answerable to voters.
The sad truth is the the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of responsibility that most small businesses have disappears when the company reaches a certain size. A giant bureaucracy is a giant bureaucracy whether it's public or private, and it suffers from the same problems.
The big difference is that while you have a say in who runs the public bureaucracy, and you have the right to find out what it's doing, you can't say squat about what giant corporations do, and you have no way to find out what they're doing. Oh, except through the agency of the government bureaucracy.
6Kings, I think this practice is far more prevalent than you think and hence the reason why our economy is dragging. The Marie Antoinettes of the business world don't want to let in the riff raff.
I think it's amusing that you have fallen back on the "it's not good practice, the free market will work it out" fantasy. And with yet another lie about Obama (the looter). Those companies begged the government for bail out money, dude. What world are you living in?
Apparently the same world as Anonymous above. Please stop with the bullshit, anon. Just because I want to see an end to our plutonomy doesn't mean I'm a Marxist who hates hard working people. Clean out the Cult plaque and dispense with the sad myth that regulation and oversight means Marxism and Hitler. If you feel the need to label me, you can call me a Manzian.
What you and 6Kings should be doing is thanking President Obama...and me...for being part of a small group of people actually trying to prevent a socialist revolution.
The big difference is that while you have a say in who runs the public bureaucracy, and you have the right to find out what it's doing, you can't say squat about what giant corporations do, and you have no way to find out what they're doing. Oh, except through the agency of the government bureaucracy.
And yet somehow, with all its power, somehow I can refuse to buy an iPhone and Steve Jobs can't do anything about it.
But on the other hand, if I refuse to buy health insurance the IRS has the option to compel my obedience with those combat shotguns they've been buying. And the only way I can change that ever is to gain more control of government than the unprecedented in the history of the Republic degree of control the Democrats needed to impose such a rule.
Wow. I feel so... empowered.
>6Kings, I think this practice is far more prevalent than you think and hence the reason why our economy is dragging.
Lol! Let me get this straight - you think that employers would just love to hire tons more people, but since they are so willing to discriminate against the currently jobless, the entire economic recovery is lagging. What a stereotypical liberal - rather than look for a straightforward explanation for a phenomenon, you create a nefarious one. More:
>Actually, what's really galling is that it is yet another example of the idiocy of this country. Do any of these companies understand that what is holding us back from a full recovery is the high rate of unemployment?
I see, so companies should hire people not because they think that hiring people can make them money, but because it's good for the country. Wow, you really are a piece of work Mark. You have absolutely no inkling of how a business is run, and yet you opine confidently about business decisions.
Here's a few newsflashes:
Companies don't hire people for the good of the country, or to please idiot liberals like you. They hire people to make them money. When businesses don't see much prospect in making money, they aren't likely to hire people. Some may even use unusual criteria like current employment as a proxy for whether prospective candidates are worth considering, rightly or wrongly. You can be sure, however, that if there was lots of money to be made, then companies would up their hiring, and the resultant demand would make it so that companies couldn't afford to discriminate on the basis of current employment status.
I think I have decided on a new word to describe the type of economic "analysis" that Mark engages in: wishonomics. In wishonomics, things like the self interest of businesses and businesspeople are not what drives the economy, because those things are icky - it's whatever our subject wishonomist feels is important at that moment. Regulations have no costs on the regulated, regulatory capture is extremely rare, and the effect of the political environment is binary - the environment is good if D's are in charge, bad if R's are in charge. Corporations, all by themselves and without the help of the government, can force you to do things that you don't want to do in wishonomics.
You just don't know whether to laugh or cry with Mark - laugh at the breadth of his irrationality, or cry to note that he's passing it on to other people.
I think this practice is far more prevalent than you think
M thinks he is in a pissing contest AND has the biggest dick.
Fuck any data - even the anecdotal - M has declared that this is all about what HE thinks!
You don't deserve to call yourself a "Manzian".
Haplo9,
That is too funny as I had written that exact response almost to a word and had to leave so never posted. Too funny.
Yes, his complete lack of knowledge on almost every subject is appalling. Every time you point that out, he just dismisses it and reiterates from sources like Maher and Huffpo - just two of his may sources of 'knowledge'.
Remember, HuffPo is objective, unbiased and factual, and espouses a moderate point of view. "Centrists", they are.
Haplo and 6Kings, ah yes the "Mark is stupid" line of attack. Therefore, I have "a complete lack of knowledge on almost every subject." I know it makes both of you feel better about the world when you say these things but it doesn't mean they are grounded in reality.
Haplo, your assessment of me is wrong. And, honestly, so is your strange view of how businesses conduct their affairs. You think that the magic of the free market will weed out these poor business ideas. They won't. What we have seen these past two years and continue to see with the BP spill is how utterly insane it has all become.
And you are cheering for more and calling me stupid. Keep it up, dude. I think the "no solutions-insults-anger" tactic will work out great on November 3rd.
We insult you and you take it well and for that you are to be commended. And, I have not called you stupid as I don't think you are. But all we know of you is from your postings and they are like this:
"You think that the magic of the free market will weed out these poor business ideas. They won't."
You are exposing yourself as nothing more than ignorant of economic concepts. If you think you are correct, you need to start preaching to every business school in the US that they are teaching it wrong. It isn't just this instance but in almost every thread you have posted here and TSM, you show that you have little understanding of business and economics (among other things).
You take a lot of grief everywhere because as many have pointed out, you draw conclusions that aren't supportable without contorting definitions and making some wild extrapolations to fit. But we keep coming back to help you :)
You think that the magic of the free market will weed out these poor business ideas.
It isn't magic silly boy. Bad ideas (heck, even bad execution of good ideas) don't yield profit. Without profit, a business doesn't stay in business - not even the biggest ones (unless of course they connive a bailout from the govt). You think this is magic because you do not understand it. That is a hallmark of a cultist mindset.
6Kings-Mark doesn't need "help" with anything. He supports his posts constantly with facts. You just don't like them. From what I have read about your views on economics they seem to very one sided and biased. Try some critical thinking for a change and see where that gets you.
As has been routinely pointed out, he does use facts. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand what they mean and can't draw realistic or logical conclusions because he is steeped in ignorance. This thread is a good example. It is indeed a fact that some companies have said they don't want to hire unemployed. Fine. But then goes way off target with his conclusions that:
1. It is widespread
2. It affects the country's employment rate
3. It is economically viable for long term business success (implied)
Those three items are completely and utterly absurd and have no factual basis or evidence presented which is what we pointed out.
He supports his posts constantly with facts.
Brendan, please consult a dictionary - you apparently don't know the meaning of that word.
M is a perfect cargo-cultist when it comes to facts and critical thinking - he apes what he saw real thinkers do, but he doesn't understand that he doesn't understand the actual process.
It is sad the people that think they know how to think, but don't.
He supports his posts constantly with facts.
Well yes, he does fairly often. But a lot of things he states as if they were fact are actually opinions, though this doesn't deter him from claiming them as fact. More often, the facts he uses don't necessarily (or often at all) support the conclusion he draws, yet he treats the conclusion as if it is incontrovertibly factual as well, even when it the connection between them is thin indeed. For an example currently on his front page, "88 percent approve of the new Arizona law" is factual, but the unspoken assertion that it is ipso facto evidence of racism is not. For an example of this used with an incredibly tenuos connection, see "You Lie!" = "obviously a fucking racist". Yes, that phrase was directed by a white man at a black man, that much is factual. The conclusion drawn from it however, is not only speculative, but ludicrous.
Post a Comment