Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

[Master Shake]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

From the post -

Well, are they bringing jobs (taxpayers) to Buckhead?

[gnk]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

So, they hire someone employed somewhere else, which creates an opening at the company they were hired from. Right?

It's still cost-shifting, if you think about it. Sony steals a valuable employee from a local business, and get's millions in credits! The existing firm that lost the employee now has to retrain (pay more) to find a replacement.

These "job creating" tax credits are just a race to the bottom. Here where I live there was a retail development put up a few years ago - and all the new businesses got tax breaks. All of them were publicly traded behemoths - from retail to restaurant.

Yet the existing local mom and pop businesses located in the same town got nothing but tax increases and lost valuable employees to the competition. Mom and Pops end up paying a disproportionate amount of taxes - basically, small independent businesses pay for the police and fire of the wall street publicly traded competition.

And so the accumulaton of capital in fewer hands continues...

[sunskyfan]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

They already exist ... there are companies posting job positions for government contracts they haven't gotten yet ...
for example ... just go to monster.com and just put "pending contract award" in the key word section.

[bpr]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

What tax break and who's paying it?

There's also the HIRE Act.

The payroll tax exemption provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

Qualified employees are individuals who begin employment with a qualified employer after February 3, 2010, and before January 1, 2011, who have been unemployed or employed for less than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date such employment begins, who are not employed by the qualified employer to replace another employee of that employer, unless the other employee separated from employment voluntarily or was terminated for cause, and who are not family members of or related in certain other ways to the employer.

[flintlock]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

Another possible way to look at this situation is that the employers are just too lazy to go out and find good employees, and are relying on the premise that someone currently employed must have something on the ball or he would not be employed. Playing it safe and the CYA factor is high. Seems to me they miss out on a lot of good people at bargain prices by doing that. But of course, how long will they stay if they are feeling underpaid? I can see both sides of the issue.

[Minion]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

It's tough interviewing, training, and coaching people who have had a rough go at life. Funny thing is it's easier to get the humble to learn. We tend to gravitate toward people like ourselves. No one wants to think of themselves as unemployed, to really feel what the jobless, rejected, and unsure person feels.

This would fall under "take up the cause of the maimed, the blind, the widowed, the fatherless"..........

Who will take up that cause?

[Master Shake]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

There's also the HIRE Act.

Well, then they won't qualify for that exemption then.

[bpr]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

I'm not advocating that anyone should lie, just like I'm not advocating that anyone should prejudge their applicants. But the fact is, people do both.

Fair enough.

That's a little bizarre. I've never provided that info. Why would I want to tip off my current employer that I'm quitting?

If you're a strong employee and yet have reason to leave it is counterproductive to hide it. Worst case scenario, your employer is getting calls from competitors in better markets with more resources about you. Comes in handy when asking for a raise.

This wouldn't work so well if you are underperforming, of course, and it helps if you are difficult to replace.

[bpr]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

So, they hire someone employed somewhere else, which creates an opening at the company they were hired from. Right?

Not necessarily. There are industries that are collapsing right now: you may be hiring a receptionist with 25 years of experience as a reporter. No new reporter job created.

Well, then they won't qualify for that exemption then.

Right, Sony Ericsson is denying itself this tax credit with these hiring practices.

[photoncounter]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Outofw...52371.html?x=0

The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.
Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.
"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."
Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply

As someone who has hired (just) a (very) few people in my career, how hard I look at each candidate in the first pass depends on the ratio of applicants to openings. If I have hundreds of qualified people chasing one opening, my first pass is going to be pretty crude. That's life.

I can well imagine that I'd look more favorably on applicants that were currently employed than those who had been out of work for a while. I say this even though I am now someone who has been out of work over a year and who would run up against this very "prejudice" if I sought another job. I can also well imagine that I'd look at a younger person more favorably for certain jobs than an older person; I say that as an old man.

If by some strange twist of events I was working again as a hiring manager in computer software (rather unlikely, since I'm not looking) then if someone sneaked my own resume into my in-basket with just enough details changed that I didn't recognize it was mine, there would be almost zero chance I'd consider that resume if it showed any signs of self-pity over age or unemployed status.

One of the most poisonous things any one can do when searching for a job is to start blaming some prejudgment, such as age, race, gender or in this case unemployment status, for rejections. That sets up a dangerous loser mentality. Never mind that, even if it is true. Hiring managers are looking for winners, not losers with excuses.

[photoncounter]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

As someone who has hired (just) a (very) few people in my career, how hard I look at each candidate in the first pass depends on the ratio of applicants to openings. If I have hundreds of qualified people chasing one opening, my first pass is going to be pretty crude. That's life.

Agreed with strict testing, but outright rejection is not fair.

I can well imagine that I'd look more favorably on applicants that were currently employed than those who had been out of work for a while.

May be under certain specific circumstances -- but most certainly not when when companies are laying off people to report better quarterly results. A smart friend of mine was unemployed for more than a year just cause his group's work was outsourced (late 2008). He did voluntary work during this time, tried to start his own business and even cleared some interviews but didn't get hired cause after various interviews over months, 2 companies decided to scrap the positions !

What I am trying to say is, probably there are many smart people out there looking for jobs during such times. I see it as an opportunity for companies to hire good talent for cheap.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

Agreed with strict testing, but outright rejection is not fair.

It may not seem fair to the applicant, but it's not the moral or legal obligation of the hiring manager to hire the single best candidate. It's their obligation to get a good hire for a reasonable effort. So far as the "testing" you mention, testing isn't even used to filter applicants for many jobs, and is of only limited use in many other cases, mostly as a filter to weed out the more unqualified.

The hiring manager does not owe you a job; he doesn't even owe you a fair shot at one.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Help Wanted, No UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES Will Be Considered AT ALL!

May be under certain specific circumstances -- but most certainly not when when companies are laying off people to report better quarterly results.

I've been through my share of layoffs (as the one laying others off, not the one laid off.) The best ones are kept where possible. If I were hiring in this job market for a job that was easy to fill, I'd want the ones still working.

And if you're unemployed, or worse, unemployed and old (as I am) then letting either of those facts creep into your mind as any sort of excuse or reason to be concerned with "what's not fair" is lethal to a successful job hunt.

Focus on what you can do to make yourself a more valuable employee, and know that it's a crap shoot. The last time I looked for work (over twenty years ago) I sent out over 1000 resumes, which got me two offers, one more than I needed. Intensity, commitment, drive. The random accidental details that decide who gets any particular job are beyond your control. Perhaps your paper happens to have just arrived on top of some manager's in-basket five minutes before his boss asks again how the hiring is going for that open requisition. Perhaps you were number two in that stack, but number one happened to use a font which the hiring manager unconsciously dislikes.