Want Ad: Unemployed Need Not Apply: "No unemployed candidates will be considered"

[The Straight Story]

Want Ad: Unemployed Need Not Apply
Man Shocked After Reading Orlando-Based Recruiter's Ad


ORLANDO, Fla. -- Job hunters are facing a new trend: businesses asking recruitment companies to keep unemployed people out of their job pools.

Peter May, of Atlanta, said he was hoping Orlando-based recruiter "The People Place" would help him find a job with Sony Ericsson. The company is moving its headquarters to Buckhead, which is located outside Atlanta.

May said he was mortified when he read the message on the website. In all caps, and bold type, it said, "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all."


"To just totally leave those people out of the mix, it's stupefying. I just can't understand it at all. ...To be honest with you, it kind of angered me. You know, I'm a good enough guy," May said on Monday.

Sony Ericcson is supposed to bring 180 jobs to Buckhead, and was lured there with the prospect of a $4 million in state tax credits. But May said if the company is refusing to hire the unemployed, that deal should be rescinded.

http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html

[tammywammy]

1. That's awful and completely wrong. n/t

[RedCloud]

2. Tax those businesses to extinction.

[The Straight Story]

4. Instead they get a $4 million tax credit. Go figure (nt)

[Dappleganger]

24. More like a $4 million welfare check.

Let's call a spade a spade.

[rocktivity]

33. Aw, let's not call a spade a spade

"Passive job seeker" sounds so much NICER than "unemployed bum," and it carries the added bonus of implying that it's the bums seeker's fault!

P.S. What's an "active" jobs seeker, then--one who PRETENDS to be employed to get a job?

:eyes:
rocktivity

[eShirl]

34. [phone]

[Shadow Creature]

47. welfare is exactly what it is

Corporate welfare and favoritism is one of the stupidest things governments ever started doing.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Ridiculous.

[laughingliberal]

5. Yep. Take away the tax break.

The propaganda for tax breaks is always about encouraging these companies to bring jobs to an area. A deal's a deal.

[CurtEastPoint]

6. I read this in the AJC and they later revised the ad and took out that language, but...

the damage and intent was done. F'em.

[704wipes]

145. And they will still filter out the unemployed apps

Now, it is just extra work for them to act in the same way they stated they would...
They were trying to lighten their workload.

But, I am sure they heard the rescind the tax break talk, and said oooops.

[Statistical]

7. Why?

I mean wouldn't a evil capitalist realize that unemployed are more desperate and likely will work harder for less money & benefits.

Say it is a programmer position. Average pay is $65,000 a year. Unemployed programmer likely is getting $20,000 a year tops in UI and may run out of benefits soon. He likely will "settle" for $40,000.

Seem crazy to exclude "low cost" labor. :shrug:

[mkultra]

10. until the economy picks up, then he is gone.

[jp11]

13. In the article:

During a phone conversation with Atlanta station WXIA, Howard Lawson, of "The People Place," refused to discuss the Sony Ericsson listing specifically, but he did say that he has seen a trend of employers looking to hire employed applicants.

Recruitment experts say many companies are opting out of so-called passive job seekers for a number of reasons. First, it could take longer to get them up to speed in professions that require constant training. They also say people who have not been laid off are believed to be the best in the fields, therefore more valuable.

More valuable, I guess if you want to hurt your competition that might work, I should get a job with a PR firm tossing out spin.


http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html

[ChadwickHenryWard]

103. What about the rest of us?

Some of us, I dare say the great majority, are not "the best" at anything. Hell, I know I sure as hell am not. And as I try to develop marketable skills for my future, I know I most likely never will be. What about people like me? Don't we deserve jobs that pay us what we need to live? The problem here is how we, as a society, view employment. In our current system, we, the people, are viewed as existing for the companies' benefit. It's all about what we can offer the corporations. It should be the other way around. These companies should exist for our benefit as workers and consumers.

[BrklynLiberal]

129. In many cases, it is the highest paid, most experienced folks that are laid off..so they can hire

new, less experienced folks at half the salary.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

143. Younger folks put their jobs higher on their list of priorities.

Kids just out of college are willing to work longer hours for less money, which is especially beneficial to the company if it's a salaried position. If you can get the kid to work for 80 but only get paid for 40, well, all the better. But there's that principle at work again - we exist for the company's benefit, not the other way around.

[704wipes]

147. and file less health & workmen's comp claims

nt

[reggie the dog]

134. sell drugs, rob people, or just kill yourself already

that is the message for us regular people.

[loudsue]

110. My experience: It's not the best people who are kept during layoffs

It's usually the ones with "political" connections within the heirarchy. My work has been in the cellular/utility industries....usually big corporations.

[bobburgster]

123. You've got that right!

At least in my company.

[704wipes]

146. and the under 48 crowd...

because those over that age have more workmen's comp claims and health claims.
If you are approaching 50 you are quickly becoming an 'expense' to be reduced...

[Control-Z]

120. The truth is, though,

many companies are laying off the best, because they are costing them the most. They can then hire more of the less qualified at bargain prices. Greedy lying sacks of shit.

[chrisa]

152. It's also an erroneous assertion.

Considering lay-offs are probably more based on who is more friendly with who than actual skill. :)

[JHB]

14. You just know that somewhere in managment-think there's a meme that...

...if you're unemployed, you weren't the top talent. And since they want The Best(tm), none of you unemployed losers should waste their time by applying.

:sarcasm: , for anyone who can't tell.

[Quantess]

43. That's exactly what it's about.

Never mind that this theory loses its validity during times of high unemployment.

[laughingliberal]

61. It's also invalidated by the fact that companies were working to get rid of expensive talent

and bringing in less experienced, lower paid workers. Many who are laid off right now were the tops in their fields.

[LibDemAlways]

89. You've got that right. Not to mention failing companies that have

laid off everybody. My husband's entire division of a large corporation was shut down - 250 people all let go. Then rotten bastards like this try to keep those people from getting another job. There are no words.

[unpossibles]

140. well, it does go along with the idea that

the rich all got their through their own hard work and merit and the poor are all lazy, just carried to an illogical extreme. Jesus this sucks.

[treestar]

86. good point

sounds just stupid.

[defendandprotect]

94. Yes, but it is the stress of thinking about joining the unemployed which keeps

everyone else in a downward spiral -- re salaries and working hours.

Everyone in fear --

If you start hiring the unemployed . . . well, who knows what people may

begin to think? That there could be upward movement on stagnating salaries or

that someone could find a better job?

I think that's it --

[reggie the dog]

135. the more this goes on the more i think that the guys

in easy rider had it right to just do a big time drug deal and drop out. there is no point in fighting this, honestly i already grow my own weed, if i find myself unemployed and not able to get work because of it i will just grow and sell the extra in a state with the coolest laws (spain perhaps)

[customerserviceguy]

125. There's a perception

that if you lost your job, then you were not a good worker in the first place. That assumption might be slightly more valid in a full employment economy, but it is useless when there are so very many good people who lost jobs when the muckety-mucks at the top screwed the company into the ground,

It's an attitude that's been out there for a long, long time, but it usually isn't displayed so nakedly.

[ejpoeta]

8. why exlude the unemployed. aren't they the most likey to be LOOKING FOR A JOB!!!

[elehhhhna]

55. company tell headhunter "we can find unemployed ourselves" and wont'

pay a fee for them. The unemployed who fit the qualifications should contact the co. directly, but he paid headhunter would NEVER tell them that.

This has gone on for at least 3 recessions that I've worked thru as a recuiter. T'Jah I'm out of that now.

[ejpoeta]

97. most companies around here make you go through a temp agency.

they hire you through there and are supposed to hire you outright after a certain lenght of time. my husband was temp at a place for two years. but i guess they closed not long after they let him go. and they had the decency to give him a heads up so he could start looking before he lost got laid off.

[elehhhhna]

136. exactly - and who's going to leave a steadyish job for a temp-to-hire gig?

Your sceanario is also how small businesses stick temp companies for their payroll.

[Patiod]

151. I think you have the answer

It's not the hiring company that's saying "no unemployed" - it's the headhunter.

And headhunters earn their fee by luring "the best and the brightest" from elsewhere.

Companies can find unemployed potential hires themselves, without paying a fee.

[LibDemAlways]

9. Makes no sense at all. Sony Ericsson would prefer

that people quit their jobs in order to join the company? They want people with demonstrated lack of loyalty to an employer over those whose employer showed no loyalty to them. Fuck em.

[treestar]

87. Another good point

at least those they hire have vacated a job, leaving an opening for the unemployed!

[SocialistLez]

11. I'm sure if the tax credit was taken away, they'd put the plant somewhere else

where the credit was more lucrative.

I'm not saying their behavior is NOT disgusting and they SHOULD NOT discriminate against the unemployed.

[Dappleganger]

25. This is true--when their corporate welfare check runs out, it's typical for companies to relocate.

Cities should sue their asses off when they do this, too.

[SocialistLez]

39. I know some cities have sued

when the company reneges on the contract.

A company might have been given a tax credit to stay for x number of years and if they try to jump ship before the contract is up, SOME cities have sued.

[laughingliberal]

63. It is starting to happen. It needs to become a growing trend. Time to stop freeloading businesses.

Yet another example of that 'personal responsiblity' businesses try to convince us we should have but they don't.

[sendero]

84. Trust me..

... the numbnuts working for the cities and states that negotiate these "tax abatement" deals get taken to the cleaners every single time.

There is ZERO chance that there is any recourse for this action on Sony's part.

[lurky]

111. Well, the cities and states get taken to the cleaners.

I bet a lot of these numbnuts magically end up with large sums of money they can't explain. Just my suspicion.

[sendero]

128. Sometimes...

... that's probably true. But IMHO this phenomenon is more closely linked to the simple fact that highly paid corporate lawyers are 10 times more competent than hayseed city council members almost uniformly.

[Paper Roses]

131. I certainly would be less than worthy for a job. Laid off with the words:

This has nothing to do with your job performance.

I certainly found out.

The company packed up and moved to the deep south.

All of us were laid off, one by one.

I guess by some standards, I am not responsible and not worthy of work.

Interesting kind of discrimination.

[gorfle]

153. No, cities should promote job growth.

In my view, part of the job of government is to secure good jobs for its citizens. This means attracting businesses with good infrastructure, employable people, and financial incentives, usually in the form of tax breaks.


It's not corporate welfare. It's enticing businesses to locate in your jurisdiction instead of someplace else.

I don't know about you, but I want my local government making where I live an enticing place to set up a business.

[mkultra]

12. well, it makes sense, its just wrong

They probably think they are looking for top people and that top people have avoided being laid off.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Yep--now corporations are just going to keep cannibalizing each other

for the few souls who didn't get the axe and are probably doing the job of two or three--while excluding a huge pool of probably very talented folks who are desperate for work, all because they now have the whiff of "loser" about them for having been laid off. Very, very fucked up situation.

[mkultra]

44. Nah, some companies are considered starter careers

You know when you start there that they pay you like crap but its a foot in the door. The better companies will steal from them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. At least they are being honest

How many employers are already doing this, but just not advertising the fact.

[Statistical]

21. +1. n/t

[Raineyb]

29. The "at least they're being honest" routine doesn't excuse them from

being assholes. And it's going to hinder rather than aid in having the community recover. It used to be that companies gave a damn if the communities the are in were actually thriving.

[laughingliberal]

66. Yes. They can be 'honest' on their own dime. Take away the tax break. nt

[Raineyb]

72. You'll get no argument from me. Make the freeloading bastards pay.

At least they were honest. What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

:shrug:

While I'm at it any time a business gets a tax break to create jobs they should have to pay it back if they don't do this. My former employer got a tax break for creating new jobs. Not only did they not create the jobs they said they would create but they also closed the plant putting over 1000 people out of work. But the mayor let them keep their millions in tax incentives.

Even better cities and states need to stop robbing their own pockets by making these idiotic agreements in the first place. Companies use the commons when they come into a community and they're being allowed to pass the costs onto the tax paying public while they get a free ride! And the municipalities never come up better for it.

[704wipes]

148. right, they were just trying to lighten their workload

and not have so many apps from 'undesirables' that they have to shitcan.
Now they have to sort through and shit can those apps... They will still act the way
their ad was worded.

[LeftinOH]

16. HR/hiring associates are notoriously leery of applicants who are not currently employed

-regardless of the reason. Even if you currently have some under-paying crap job, they'll tend to view you as 'employable'.

It's similar to a romantic relationship: When you're unattached, nobody pays any attention to you.. but when you're dating or married -the 'candiates' seem to crawl out of the woodwork.

[Coyote_Bandit]

20. An applicant

has to fit neatly in their stupid little boxes. I know a candidate who was turned down for a job they had performed well for over a decade because they didn't have the right degree - indeed their education was broader and a bit more advanced.

HR folks are also notoriously leery of hiring anyone who has been or who has the capability of being self-employed.

Hiring practices are one of the biggest reasons that corporations are so lacking in creative and innovative ideas and practices. If small to moderate size businesses had meaningful access to capital many would outperform the big boys.

[Blue_Tires]

60. and as an on-and-off job seeker, i've grown to abhor that little "game"

of jumping through every little arbitrary hoop in the application process just to get denied an interview anyway...

[treestar]

88. What's wrong with the self-employed?

And who is capable of it? that could be anybody.

[Coyote_Bandit]

98. IMHO

There's nothing wrong with being self-employed. My resume shows long periods of self-employment.

I've also had both headhunters and potential employers suggest that was a detriment. Seems it makes one too independent - and thus able to walk away from a bad job/employer. To willing to question - and thus potentially not appropriately brain dead enough to simply perform rote operations as directed. Apparently thinking is not a good thing in some circles. Able to fend for onself - and thus taking a job from someone not able to do likewise.

I also suspect that potential employers often question whether self-employment was really substanail work or just a resume filler. And I think some assume that self-employed folks are non-conformists who don't fit in well.

[treestar]

150. As a self employed person it is interesting to think

That were I to get to the point of hiring, would I think the same way?

I think I'd like independence of thought, and think it would be more helpful over all, but can't be sure. One does not need someone so independent they won't do things your way.

OTOH, I know more about expenses, and how the company has to bring in more money than it spends - before I had that experience and just collected a paycheck, I don't think I really appreciated that - and might waste the company's resources more.

[wolfgangmo]

157. Bam - best comment on DU this month.

"If small to moderate size businesses had meaningful access to capital many would outperform the big boys."


I have no doubt about this. Of topic but one of the problems I have with the US not passing single payer health insurance is that small and mid sized companies have problems attracting and more importantly retaining hot talent because of the benefits issue. We simply can't compete. And of course getting capital as a small business is almost impossible without putting every asset you own on the line, something that big corporations NEVER have to do.

[Brickbat]

If we consumers and workers have to get used to the "new normal," then HR and managers should, too.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[onpatrol98]

122. crawl is correct!!!

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. Recruiters and placeent agencies

often facilitate what otherwise be impermissible discrimination in employment practices. This is just one more example. Want a blonde bimbo bombshell for a receptionist? Just say so.

And the fucking stupid bought and paid of bastards we've elected permit this crap to continue.

OTOH, I will now be reconsiering any future purchase of Sony products.

[Catshrink]

18. It's not bringing 180 jobs to Buckhead, it's replacing 180 jobs.

Since those they want to hire are already employed, this doesn't help the unemployment numbers. It might create a domino effect though because the employer of the person they hire might decide to replace that worker - or not.

[laughingliberal]

52. Nothing I can see to keep them from moving the workers from another state. nt

[lunatica]

19. This is a classic example of why the poor can never rise up the class ladder

It's called the cycle of poverty and this is how it happens. Lots of people say that the poor or just lazy and uneducated and that if they really wanted to they could rise above poverty.

This is one of the ways it happens.

[area51]

35. +1

Regarding the OP, I saw that type of blurb, "no unemployed need apply" for a company in Houston & was really pissed. :mad: :nuke: Companies wouldn't be able to pull this type of shit if we weren't so overpopulated in this country.

[tallahasseedem]

37. +1

You are absolutely correct.

All of these private industries want potential employees to have experience, yet aren't willing to give a person a chance to get experience. Only those who have connections are able to gain employment so they can move up the ladder quickly.

The cycle continues...

**Sigh**

[laughingliberal]

58. +1000 nt

[WillyT]

91. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:mad:

:wtf:

:nuke:

[Raineyb]

22. WTF? So they're hiring but not hiring unemployed people?

They're more likely to take the god-damned job! This is beyond ridiculous!

[rocktivity]

38. And they're more likely to take it for less money

which is what I thought they cared most about. Besides, wouldn't an employed person be more likely to quit if he got an even BETTER offer?

:eyes:
rocktivity

[Raineyb]

57. And these morons managed to stay employed?

Just goes to show that being unemployed is not necessarily a function of you not being a good worker. (Why they would make such an assumption is beyond me it's asinine and not even true in this economy.)

[Blue_Tires]

62. i think this is one of their thinly-veiled smokescreens

to justify transferring their own out-of-state employees into these jobs -- they don't want to admit they fudged the new jobs numbers when they were shaking down the city for tax credits...

[Raineyb]

73. Unbelievable. Especially since I don't think I've ever seen a city demand the

tax breaks back for not performing as promised. That is the least they need to start doing.

[Dappleganger]

23. Corporate welfare recipients denying jobs to the very tax-payers who made it possible

for them to locate to their state.

Way to go, republicans!

[onehandle]

26. I thought that Sony Ericcson was tanking? But if they are looking for a free ride...

...and a place where corporations are more valued than residents, then they picked the right state.

[MadHound]

27. And the creation of a permanent unemployed underclass continues apace

It's been going on for awhile, but now it seems to be proceeding faster and the movement is much stronger.

[Macoy]

51. A Permanent Unemployed Underclass

“And the creation of a permanent unemployed underclass continues apace”

This is what worries me about the current recession. We are going to end up with close to 10% of the available workforce permanently employed with no hope of finding meaningful employment.

On a creative note, if discrimination against hiring the unemployed spreads, I can see the unemployed creating bogus shell companies that other unemployed can claim to work for when applying for jobs.

If any one wants to list their current position as with “Macoy Business Associates”, a privately held company as their current employer, feel free to do so.

:)


Macoy

[wolfgangmo]

158. I heartily agree.

In most states it is pretty easy to set up a company for very little money. LLc.

IF someone needs to an employment reference (we are in Minnesota so... thought you might want to know that) then let me know. I'll be more than happy to verify employment.

[JeffersonChick]

28. This is revolting n/t

[AngryOldDem]

31. So if you're not employed...

...you're basically worthless.

On its face it smacks of discrimination.

[suffragette]

32. Found cached ads from "The People Place" showing this

Their main site has the job opportunities section "currently under construction."
Hmm. shouldn't that be reconstruction?

Here's the cached ads I found:
http://careers.thepeopleplace.net/index.php?m=portal&a=listings&page=2


May 28 Director of Marketing Communications and Public Relations - Sony Ericsson Atlanta, GA Atlanta GA Major Consumer Electronics Company Marketing : Communications $90K - $130K
Head of Marketing Communications and Public Relations Candidates MUST be currently working for an original consumer electronics manufacturer in marketing NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL. NO EXCEPTIONS Salary Range: $90K

May 27 Head of Marketing Communications and Public Relations - Sony Ericsson Atlanta, GA Atlanta GA Major Consumer Electronics Company Marketing : Communications $90K - $130K
Head of Marketing Communications and Public Relations Candidates MUST be currently working for an original consumer electronics manufacturer in marketing NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL. NO EXCEPTIONS Salary Range: $90K

[tallahasseedem]

36. WTF?

This is disgusting. The $4 million in state tax credits offer should be rescinded IMMEDIATELY!

[rocktivity]

40. Has Ericsson ever heard of "headhunters"?

They are placement agencies who have client lists of employed people and contact applicants directly. The fee is a percentage of the salary for the jobs, but it's a LOT more discreet!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[LibertyLover]

41. Sadly, this has been going on for years

I once interviewed for a position with, if I recall correctly, Bell, when I lived in New Jersey and was questioned very carefully over gaps in my employment history. You know, like the ones you have when you graduate from college and are looking for a job. I had a few for that very reason, finished school, went to grad school, finished that, couldn't get a permanent job, had a number of temp jobs, took a secretarial course to learn how to really type (this was many years ago) not just the "get by as a student" typing. For the longest break I told them that I had been caring for a sick family member - and it was true, sort of - it's just that the family member was my dog. I didn't get the job after all, and a few weeks later got a better offer.

[nashville_brook]

78. "independent contractor"

that's all you need to say. or, are obliged to say.

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. That's even fucking dumber than the idiots who run credit checks on job applicants

Seriously, I didn't think you could top that for sheer stupidity. But they managed to do it. :puke:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. I always say some people prefer to quash the powerless than reaping more profit.

Things like this prove me right.

[msanthrope]

46. Time for Vandelay Industries on the resume.....n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

48. I got this YEARS ago

It is all about head hunters maintaining the facade that they have some sort of inside track that companies themselves don't. Anybody can find unemployed job candidates

When I was unemployed these recruiters wouldn't even continue the conversation once that was disclosed, when I was a "Supply Chain Internal Audit Manager" which despite the title consisted of me counting unsalable merchandise, much of it disgusting, before destroying it all of the sudden I was a hot commodity to head hunters.

I was no longer "unemployed loser" - I was "young fortune 500 manager in a core business function looking for an opportunity to grow"

and oh yeah, head hunters lie through the fucking teeth,

[Yavin4]

49. HR and Recruiters Have All of these Stupid Rules When Screening Candidates

Screen out the unemployed, folks with bad credit, folks who job hop, folks coming from another state, older workers, young workers, etc.

When I hired people, I was only concerned about whether they could do the job without me having to constantly train them. If you can do the tasks that I assign you, everything else is irrelevant.

[Quantess]

54. "Don't hire anyone who salts their food before tasting it"

Yes, people have failed interviews for breaking that "rule". At least, according to an article I read somewhere.

[Dawson Leery]

50. Recind the tac credit then.

[DimplesinMI]

53. First, thanks for the link........

This is shameful and I wonder if this is happening in my state of Michigan. I used this link to write an article on "If employers are hindering the unemployed" on a recent article. Not sure if I can link the article here (since I wrote it) so I will not.

Congress need to look at this issue when they are cutting off unemployment benefits to the long-term exhaustees (unemployment individuals that have received benefits for up to 99 weeks). Instead, they are "gung-ho" in leaving the unemployed with no safety net while employers play games on both sides of the coin......i.e.-Extended Unemployment Benefits are costing us to much/We do not want to hire unemployed individuals. SICKING........... :sarcasm:

[nashville_brook]

77. i'd love to read it if you find the link -- was just commiserating about this yesterday

would like to forward it on to my buddy -- the discussion was about 'do you look for work now, while you have a job you don't love, or do you wait for the inevitable.' i was arguing "NOW, dammit!"

[Xithras]

56. It's a matter of "choice" vs. "necessity".

An unemployed worker NEEDS a job, and therefore is more likely to apply for positions he/she is barely qualified for, or doesn't particularly want (but needs the paycheck, and so applies anyway). These applicants require more screening, more training, are often less happy as employees, and are more likely to jump ship when the economy improves. They didn't particularly want to work for Company X, but Company X was the only company hiring, so they went to work there anyway.

An employed worker doesn't NEED the job, but is applying because it's a position they really want to have. The employed applicant is more likely to be content in the new position if they get it, and less likely to leave when other positions open elsewhere. The employed applicant wanted to work for Company X, and is happy to work for that particular company when they land the position.

Employed and unemployed applicants have two completely different sets of motivations for pursuing a position. Those differing motivations can impact a number of other things down the line.

There is one other very practical reason for doing this. An open position in a more generalized field may fetch hundreds, or even thousands of qualified applicants in a down economy like we are currently experiencing. Filtering these applicants can be a major project. By limiting the pool to currently employed applicants, you slash the number of applicants to be screened. THIS, quite often, is the real reason why smaller companies to this. Big corporations have a variety of reasons for limiting applicants, but small companies are usually just trying to save their tiny HR departments from a landslide of resumes.

And, as others have pointed out, this is nothing new. I ran into it a lot back in the 90's.

[laughingliberal]

67. They can do what they like with their money. Take away the tax break.

[LeftyFingerPop]

68. They can't violate anti-discrimination laws...

While this is not cut and dried, a good lawyer could make a case that they are discriminating against an entire class of people.

[laughingliberal]

74. Likely true. Take their tax break, anyway. nt

[Xithras]

76. It's not illegal to discriminate

a good lawyer could make a case that they are discriminating against an entire class of people.

There is no law in the U.S., either at the federal level or within any state, that criminalizes discrimination as a concept. You may be correct that a lawyer could make a case that it's discrimination, but it's not an actionable discrimination case. In Georgia, it's illegal to discriminate in employment based on race, gender, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age, military service or affiliation, anticipated deployment with the Reserves or National Guard, bankruptcy or bad debts, genetic information, or citizenship status.

Discrimination based on any other factors, including current employment status, is perfectly legal.

[rocktivity]

70. I would think that an employed applicant would be MORE inclined to leave for a better position

having done it at least once before!

:crazy:
rocktivity

[Dawson Leery]

81. Then take the tax credit away.

[LeftyFingerPop]

59. I highly doubt that this practice is even legal. n/t

[kelly1mm]

82. Really? How so? Employment status is not a protected class. nt

[liberation]

93. There is no such thing as a "protected class"

unless you have spent way too much time around right wing circles.

[boppers]

107. The EEO is right wing?

http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[liberation]

118. The term "protected class" is a red herring

Every US citizen by definition is a member of a protected class.

[boppers]

119. splain, please?

First you are arguing that the terminology is right wing, when I show legal examples of it being left-wing (or centrist), you point out that everybody is a protected class.

I'm not following.

[kelly1mm]

154. "Protected Class" is a legal term - look it up. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

64. Horrible. Thanks for posting this. I hope the company gets lots of bad press

[Echo In Light]

65. Hopefully a mob of the unemployed will become quite violent w/these A-Holes

[melm00se]

69. in a perverted twist of logic

I can understand this:

if you couldn't find a job...any job...then you might not be worth looking at. I can see this applying in a highly employed market (say unemployment well under 5%) but in today's market that makes zero sense...

[Dawson Leery]

83. Long term unemployment is at 17%.

[TheKentuckian]

71. These thugs rule needs to be broken. Its past time to drastically rein in hiring practices

credit, employed, bodily fluids, and all manner hoops and silly games.

I'm sure we'll have the usual claptrap about private ownership from the Capitalist Gang but the situation is out of hand and threatens to expand the permanent underclass and probably greatly expanding the ranks of the homeless when we should be ending that plague on society.

Theses practices are counter-productive to the society as a whole and generally meaningless to meriting and performing in a position. It is simply trying to put the hiring process on some kind of auto-pilot instead of actually doing the hard work of evaluating a candidate and understanding the job you are hiring for.

Many of these HR people have advanced degrees in their fields and I find it laughable they have devised a bunch of truly meaningless filters to keep them from actually doing their jobs, and yeah I've hired and trained hundreds of people.

[City Lights]

75. How is that even legal?

:shrug: If it is, we are so fucked. :argh:

[Whoa_Nelly]

139. t's NOT legal

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Hope these fuckers are taken to task for this, but by whom? ACLU? Private individuals? Whistleblowers?

[McCamy Taylor]

79. I hate companies that steal other companies' valuable employees. They should train their own.

This whole "hire the employeed" idea smacks of sexism and racism, too, since it can be used to maintain the status quo in industries which have traditionally discriminated.

[noamnety]

80. This should be challenged

by a woman who's taken time off work to have a child. I think they'd be able to win a discrimination suit.

[Lucian]

85. That makes no sense.

Employed people don't need jobs. Unemployed people do.

Sony Ericcson should lose their tax credits. This is bullshit.

[Synicus Maximus]

90. Point one the add does not say anything about the majority of

workers, only applicants for two positions, Director of Sales and Director of Marketing. And has nothing to do with the rank and files workers. Plus there is no "plant" to move. There are no plants in Buckhead, unless you count a micro brewery as a "plant".

[liberation]

92. It explains a lot about Sony/Ericsson's management...

The company is already ran into the ground. Doubt it may survive a couple more years.

[SunDrop23]

126. One more year tops in the US, then Sony Ericsson will be long gone...

Print it.

[Odin2005]

95. That is messed up!

[Sparkly]

96. Soup Kitchen Sign: "We Don't Serve Hungry People."

About the same.

[mreilly]

99. Screw them; I'm going the opposite route

My company is hiring and I'm the head interviewer for one position. We've received a slew of resumes and talked to a few candidates and I've found that I give more preference to the folks WITHOUT jobs. We've had a few happily employed types who just want to "see what's out there." Promptly dismissed those resumes; they have work and are happy doing it. We've had some not-so-happily employed candidates who would like to find a better place to work. I do feel badly for them, but if it's a choice between hiring someone so they can improve their mood or hiring someone else so they can pay their bills and feed their family, I'm going with the latter option every time, so long as the candidate is the right one for our standards and experience.

[laughingliberal]

115. +1000 nt

[nebenaube]

149. You sound like a good human! n/t

[Toucano]

100. I think it's the RECRUITER who is doing this, not SONY ERICCSON

There is nothing like this on Sony Ericcson's website for any job listed.

People can apply for the job directly to Sony Ericcson and not face this discrimination.

[rox63]

138. I don't think so

<emphasis mine>

The first line of the article says: "Job hunters are facing a new trend: businesses asking recruitment companies to keep unemployed people out of their job pools."

[Touchdown]

101. Nobody who invented the "Memory Stick" should get a tax break.

:eyes:

[guitar man]

102. Yank their business license

Tell them they are no longer welcome to do business in the US if that's the way they are going to be. That's a company that has no interest in helping the situation in these tough times. Throw the bums out! :grr:

[Mr. Ected]

104. I Was Unemployed For Almost A Year, Once Upon A Time

I remember thinking during my interviews that the interviewer could see the desperation in my eyes. It's the most helpless feeling in the world, and only gets worse with each successive "no thank you".

[Timbuk3]

105. Well, there's anothe product I'll no longer buy

The state had better rescind the tax cuts, too.

[Digit]

108. Ditto for me

I am newly employed but it is unconscionable to discriminate against the unemployed.
Oh, it might not be illegal, but it is morally and ethically wrong!

Ah well, and to think I was going to buy my daughter a Sony Digital Recorder...I will be
checking out the other brands....

Damn, and here I look around and see all the Sony products I own....I was once very loyal
to them.

NOT anymore!

[pundaint]

106. I'll buy Sony gear, but not if it's for sale. Same with erickson.

[kestrel91316]

109. Boycott Sony. IMMEDIATELY. Then let's work on federal legislation to

completely prohibit this CRAP. Enough is enough. It's clear they want the poor to stay that way.

[Joanne98]

130. K&R 1000

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. The expenses of hiring, training, and paying an employee's wages and benefits are

already deductible from state and federal income tax.

What more do those greedheads want?

[Mimosa]

113. Meanest thing I ever heard.

I totally agree with this:

"Sony Ericcson is supposed to bring 180 jobs to Buckhead, and was lured there with the prospect of a $4 million in state tax credits. But May said if the company is refusing to hire the unemployed, that deal should be rescinded."

Buckhead is not outside ATL. It is inside the perimeter, close in and part of the city of Atlanta.

THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!

Do we have any GA lawyers on DU ?

[moondust]

114. Stupid.

It only makes a tiny bit of sense if EVERYBODY who is qualified, willing, and able to work is already employed. I've never known that to be anything even close to reality.

I think it's quite likely that many people laid off during a recession, downsizing, merger, etc. through no fault of their own who are not desperate for rent money may decide to take an extended vacation rather than run out and take the first unattractive job that pops up.

[alp227]

116. That sign reflects my experience applying to jobs too. n/t

[LaPera]

117. Does anyone even have the slighest doubt that this pig fuck is a republican?

[DailyGrind51]

121. Put a Federal 10% "hiring tax" on compnaies for each employed candidate selected over an unemployed

one. Make it too expensive NOT to hire the unemployed!

[Catherina]

124. Shameful. Boycott Sony Ericcson n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

127. Personally, I couldn't work for assholes like this. n/t

[Cid_B]

132. I'm ok with this...

If I was an employer and had to choose between the two candidates with the same skills but one had been unemployed for 6 months and one had worked at McDonald's for the last 6, I would choose the McDonald's guy easily.

[reggie the dog]

133. i have been saying this for years, grow weed, brew meth

hell you can make 200 000 dollars for 3 days work driving several hundred kilos of cocaine from arizona to chicago. I know it is illegal but if you bring a gun and are ready to kill the police who try to stop you it is ok for a job, you do one delivery every ten years, get welfare and live off of 20 grand cash a year. in a world where losing one job disqualifies you for others we may as well just turn to crime.

[Celebration]

137. this is a RECRUITMENT company

Sony won't pay the recruitment company to find them unemployed job applicants. I don't know, makes sense to me. But the recruitment company won't be hiring the entire workforce.

This is not an issue, really, unless Sony is only going through the recruitment company, which I doubt.

[Fire1]

141. Another fine example of why this country SUCKS! n/t

[newtothegame]

142. He sounds really "concerned." nt

[scentopine]

144. Human Resource People - have turned from helpful liason for employee

to fucking hostile and completely worthless entities paid to fuck over employees. They spend all their time trying to figure out ways to squeeze more and more work out of people with less and less pay and benefits.

And, no creation on this earth is more horrible than a resource director with an MBA. Note to new kids - NEVER bring a problem to HR. They exist to filter out trouble makes. In the old days you could approach HR with problems in benefits and pay, etc. Now they are like SS for the CEO.

[BrklynLiberal]

156. The change in department name was another step in the de-personalization of the workplace. It used

to be called the PERSONNEL department. But now, "personnel" is merely another commodity, that has to be dealt with in terms of the cost/benefit analysis.

[Jkid]

155. Job listing might as well tell them to get a low wage service job and be done with it.