No Unemployed Need Apply

As if being laid off in the worse recession since the Great Depression wasn’t bad enough, here’s some more disheartening news for the jobless.

According to this article from CNN Money, some employers are deliberately ignoring the applications of out-of-work applicants, choosing instead to only hire people who are currently employed.

Here’s the link: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm. Read it and weep.

This is occurring at the same time the Senate is still debating whether to extend unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their initial claims (like me). And this is occurring at the same time some stupid politicians say that jobless people don’t want to work, and throwing them off unemployment will force them to get a job. But how can unemployed people get a job if employers are summarily deep-sixing their applications? Think about it, and you can see the bind we jobless people are in.

But let’s get back to the article. To me, this is the epitome of lazy management. HR departments simply want to cut down on their workload and would rather read only 10 resumes instead of 20. Never mind that the unemployed applicants may have exactly the qualifications, skills and experience a company is looking for. Oh, but how would they know, if those applications are thrown immediately into the trash?

And isn’t it the job of an HR department to review ALL applications? We are truly sorry that our misfortune is making more work for those poor, overburdened human resource professionals.

And let’s dissect the theory that unemployed people were let go because of performance-related issues. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14.6 million were unemployed as of June. So they were all crappy workers? That’s doesn’t say much about our educational system, does it?

It’s more likely that the jobless were simply caught in a numbers crunch when a company decided to downsize or go out of business altogether. They were the victims of bad luck, not bad performance.

Companies lay off poor-performers during good economic times and bad. They don’t wait for a recession to get rid of deadwood.

And most companies have procedures in place whereby a poor-performing employee can better his or her work product and habits. Management gives a detailed list of what needs to be improved and the employee is given a reasonable timeframe in which to respond.

In such situations, employees have control over their fate: They can either straighten up or find another job.

A laid-off employee is not given the same chance. Oh, there may be rumors of staff cutbacks, but no one can be sure when and whether he or she will be laid off.

In fact, decisions about layoffs are usually made behind closed doors by management and supervisors. Us poor, cubicle-dwelling serfs have no say in the matter.

There is no warning, until the day you are told to pack up your desk and leave.

And let’s not ignore the role office politics plays in company layoffs. Managers, like parents, pick favorites. In other words, managers will choose to keep their handpicked lapdogs, even at the expense of other well-performing employees who simply had the audacity to speak up to their supervisor.

Never listen to a manager who says he or she wants a collaborative work environment. They want total control and will brook no dissent. Even making suggestions is sometimes enough to land you in a supervisor’s doghouse…or on the unemployment rolls.

This practice harkens back to the days of the 1850s when employment ads said, “No Irish Need Apply.”

Excluding unemployed people is just as discriminatory. Seems like we haven’t progressed very far from then, have we?

We’re told to get jobs, instead of living off unemployment, but then no one wants to hire us. It’s insane. I’m surprised more hasn’t been written about this odious practice.