Disposable People: The Unemployed Need Not Apply

[paft.livejournal.com]

From Clickorlando.com 6/1/10:
Job hunters are facing a new hurdle: businesses asking recruitment companies to keep unemployed people out of their job pools.

Video here.

Yes, you read that right. Some businesses are now placing job ads that exclude all those icky unemployed people. A trend I first mentioned back in July of last year is continuing and, according to this story, growing.

So, many of the unemployed face, not only the cutting off of their unemployment benefits, not only potential employers holding bad credit ratings, (often a byproduct of not having a job) against them, they now are increasingly being barred by potential employers from applying for job openings -- because they are unemployed.

Apparently in today’s society, more and more, once you’re out, you’re out.

Think of the weapon this hands employers. The saying, so beloved of free market types, “If you don’t like the job, quit and find another one,” is becoming not just a platitude, but a mocking sneer. Quitting is no longer an option, being fired, or laid off, no longer a relatively minor blip in someone’s working life.

If this trend continues, unemployment itself could become a catastrophe that knocks someone permanently out of full time work.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: I'm saying that assuming someone is unemployed because they're less competent, less hardworking, and less trustworthy than people who are employed is a fallacy.
bs: Most every person in charge of hiring will disagree with you. What do you think this means?

If true, it means that every person in charge of hiring is plainly oblivious to what things like catastrophic illness or severe recessions can do to someone's job situation. If true, it means the every person in charge of hiring is as incompetent as you seem to assume the unemployed are.

Of which there are a great many these days. Again, are you claiming that we've had a sudden epidemic of incompetence among American workers?

bs; You might also want to look up what the word "fallacy" means. It's not an error in logic to think that someone being unemployed is related to their employability.

It is a fallacy to simply assume that all the unemployed are unemployed because they are less competent than the employed. There are many reasons for being unemployed that have little to do with one's skill at one's job.

bs: You may disagree with the strength of the correlation, as you seem to, but by no means is it fallacious.

Sweeping generalities are generally fallacious.

PFT: And how long down the road is that "end of the process?"
bs: Does it matter?

To someone struggling to pay their bills and keep their home, yes, it matters.

bs: If the process goes on indefinitely then what we've done is made a static number of individuals have a set of skills worth approximately infinity dollars. Not only will this basically mean an insta-hire for anyone willing to work for less than infinity dollars, it also means we've solved the problem of poverty. Emotional economics rules.

Could you try expressing yourself using less jargon? Your above paragraph is practically impenetrable. What do you mean "approximately infinity dollars?" And how does this solve the problem of poverty? And what is "emotional economics?"

bs: Do you similarly complain when someone hires a temp worker because their position needs to be filled immediately?

No. I do complain when companies rotate temps rather than fill the position, however.

bs: My god, how long can this process of temporary workers go on?!

In some cases, it goes on to the point where a company hires people as temps who end up working on what amounts to a permanent basis -- without the benefits and protections of permanent workers.

PFT: I'm sorry, but this example you're offering makes no sense to me. How does this justify the assumption that being unemployed is evidence of incompetence or untrustworthiness?
bs: That's not what's being discussed,

Excuse me, but that's exactly what's being discussed.

bs I will take your non-objections to mean that you actually do realize that there is no net loss in jobs and thus your argument is invalid.

Tell it to the very large numbers of newly unemployed.

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFTIf true, it means that every person in charge of hiring is plainly oblivious to what things like catastrophic illness or severe recessions can do to someone's job situation. If true, it means the every person in charge of hiring is as incompetent as you seem to assume the unemployed are.
bs: See what I mean about your emotional reactions overcoming logical faculties?

I'm not the one emoting in this thread.

bs: If I require my passengers to wear seat belts because it prevents auto fatalities does that mean a situation wherein the seatbelt prevents safety cannot arise?

No, but that's a rather poor analogy. A better analogy would be for the DMV to announce that no young men between the ages of 16 and 20 need bother applying for drivers licenses because that demographic has high auto accident rates.

PFT: It is a fallacy to simply assume that all the unemployed are unemployed because they are less competent than the employed.
BS: Good thing we didn't assume that.

HR departments described in the article are assuming that.

PFT: There are many reasons for being unemployed that have little to do with one's skill at one's job.
bs: And there are many that have everything to do with one's skill at one's job. Damn, it's almost like an acid trip my mind is so blown right now.

Yes, nuance seems to do that to you.

PFT: No. I do complain when companies rotate temps rather than fill the position, however.
BS: Which is further evidence of your lack of economic understanding. Why do you want the temps to be out of jobs? You're a bad person.

More emoting on your part.

I've worked as a temp, so believe me, I'm on the side of temps. But anyone who imagines temps are not frequently exploited by the companies that hire them knows very little about the reality of being a temp.

PFT: In some cases, it goes on to the point where a company hires people as temps who end up working on what amounts to a permanent basis -- without the benefits and protections of permanent workers.
bs: *makes masturbation motion*

And this "masturbation motion" means...? I mean other than the fact that you can't think of an intelligent response.

bs: No, I'm pretty sure that's what I was attempting to discuss via an example which apparently is beyond your capacity. You then decided that it was irrelevant, actively resisting the point that hiring from a static pool does not reduce the number of available jobs. It doesn't, you've pretty much admitted such, but you're preventing yourself from coming to the appropriate conclusions via your sanctimony and digressions.

More jargon on your part. Along with your usual histrionics.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bs: Your DMV analogy is laughable not only because you didn't understand that I was showing how exceptions to rules do not invalidate rules rather than an example of the rule itself, but also because the very stipulations you mentioned are often in place. Ever try to rent a car before you're 25? Do higher insurance rates for younger drivers also offend your sensibilities?

No, because these things are not quite as draconian as saying, simply, "once you're unemployed, the assumption is that you're incompetent, so we won't even consider hiring you." Renting a car is not generally a necessity in the sense that a job is a necessity, and charging higher insurance rates are not the same as saying simply, "we won't even consider offering you car insurance to anyone under 25."

bs: And, you're wrong - HR Departments aren't assuming that

The HR departments described in the articles on this trend are assuming that.

BS: Just like how if I refuse to look at apartments where the rent is below $400 that doesn't mean that I think rent alone determines the value of the apartment, merely that in my experience I've found that apartments at that price level are either far away from where I wish to live or in a very poor part of town, and I'd rather forgo the option of finding the diamond in the rough for being able to cut my list of potential places to live in half and save myself hours of time.

Another bad analogy. It would come close to applying only if the HR people were weeding out job applicants who had stated astonishingly low salary objectives.

bs: I've been a temp, too! Can I now make categorical statements that bear little relevance to the matter at hand?

My not knowing whether you'd ebeen a temp or not hasn't prevented you from doing this so far. .

bs: Once again, you missed the point, the point being that you complain when companies "rotate temps" yet you're ignoring the several temps who are able to find work because of that.

How does a company doing this enable a temp to find permanent work?

bs: As to how this relates to my original point that hiring from a static pool doesn't actually reduce the number of jobs I'll leave to you, because I've already labored over it far, far enough.

In other words, it was pure jargon, and attempting to connect it to the real world is just too demanding for you.

bs: It's to illustrate the manner in which you go off on self-serving tangents that provide no useful information other than to shore up your faulty reasoning abilities.

What specifically have I said that you consider a "self-serving tangent?"