Need A Job? No? Good. Here’s Another.
Hey Team,
This is just way too crazy of an article and entirely too fitting of this site not to repost here. I was blow away by the tweet I saw pointing out this story and it just went downhill from there.
Apparently it’s becoming increasingly more common to see job postings that specifically state “Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason.”
Ads asking the unemployed not to apply are easy to find. A Craigslist ad for assistant restaurant managers in Edgewater, N.J. specifies, “Must be currently employed.” Another job posting for a tax manager at an unnamed “top 25 CPA firm” in New York City contains the same line in all caps.
A company’s choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.
“In the current economy, where millions of people have lost their jobs through absolutely no fault of their own, I find it beyond unconscionable that any employer would not consider unemployed workers for current job openings,” she said. “Not only are these employers short-sighted in their search for the best qualified workers, but they are clearly not good corporate citizens of the communities in which they work. Increasingly, politicians and policy makers are trying to blame the unemployed for their condition, and to see this shameful propaganda trickle down to hiring decisions is truly sad and despicable.”
You can find the article in its entirety here.
Horrible, ego-deflating and completely lacking any modicum of empathy.
I’m done.
Brett.
article found via @lons on twitter
Random Entries
Loading…


June 5, 2010 - 10:33 pm
They might as well put, “Must be disloyal to current employer. If you are unable to be disloyal, we are not interested.”
Seriously. They’re looking for someone who is looking to leave their job? Are they intentionally looking for job hoppers for some reason? Most sane firms would prefer someone who would be willing to stay with the company through tough times and may only be available due to a layoff.
IF you ask me, it’s an incredibly stupid policy.
June 5, 2010 - 10:46 pm
Exactly! The two things that bugged me the most were:
1. “It’s our preference that they currently be employed [...] We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here.”
If they were happy where they were and loyal…they wouldn’t have been looking at job postings and…
2. “The add specified: ‘NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL.’ When asked about the ad, a spokeswoman said, ‘This was a mistake, and once it was noticed it was removed.’”
Really?! You ACCIDENTALLY typed ‘NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL.’ in all caps on your job post? If I’m dumb enough to believe that, would you really want me working for you?
June 10, 2010 - 12:02 pm
Combine this with American Apparel’s policy and you’d need to be employed AND good looking in order to be hired!
http://gawker.com/5559165/american-apparel-has-a-full-body-head-to-toe-hiring-policy
June 10, 2010 - 2:17 pm
Good link. Maybe Debrahlee from Citibank needs to look into applying at AA.