Unemployed Need Not Apply: State Bans Want-Ad Ploy

[Dulcinea]

They say it takes money to make money — but does it take a job to land a job? Some companies in New Jersey think so, leading the state to enact a new law that forbids employers from requiring that all new job applicants be currently employed.

The law is evidently the first of its kind in the United States. Joel Rose filed a report for Newscast:

The law's sponsors say it has become common for businesses in New Jersey to post want ads with caveats like "must be employed" or "no unemployed candidates will be considered." Supporters of the law say that disproportionally hurts minority workers, who are more likely to be unemployed. Lawmakers in New Jersey say they're the first to outlaw the practice. At first, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill, saying businesses in the state are already over-regulated. But Christie suggested some changes to the bill, and signed it into law this week.

New Jersey isn't the only place where this is happening — the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission is keeping an eye on companies in other states, as well.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/01/135041537/unemployed-need-not-apply-state-bans-want-ad-ploy

[FSogol]

1. Good. n/t

[progressoid]

2. Wait.

First Christie won't sign it because businesses are over-regulated. Then he signs it with his changes.

Fuckin politicians. So what was the real reason he didn't sign it? What nice changes did he make for his business buddies?

[Shiver]

6. I'd like to know what those changes are...

[Dulcinea]

3. kick for the jobless. eom

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Here in Colorado, they avoid saying it explicitly

Ads use phrases like "recent experience in ... "

It's clear enough what they mean.

[Dulcinea]

5. kick for the jobless. eom

[ck4829]

7. This needs to catch on and even Christie saw how cruel and corrupt this practice is. K&R

[Lorien]

8. And just plain idiotic. My cousin lost her job when her whole department was eliminated

She works at the executive level and is highly skilled at her job. Any corporation would be lucky to have her on board, but if they won't interview her because she's unemployed then it's THEIR loss!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

10. Yup.....

Holding people responsible for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.

[fujiyama]

9. It'll hurt companies

In reality it's just a way for them to be lazier.

As HR departments are being filled with resumes, with many qualified candidates, this is just a way to sort through it. I can almost definitely guarantee that someone that has been out of work for sometime is going to bust their ass off and work twice as hard to keep their job and prove their worth. But instead there's some dumb stigma that those laid off or out of work, "didn't make the cut".

Being unemployed isn't fun and oftentimes it's not due to one's performance. I was at a company with incompetent management that started hemorrhaging cash and didn't pay my contracting company, which eventually told me I had to leave, at the surprise of even my own manager at the client site! How the hell was that my fault?

All I can say is FUCK those companies that say they don't want to hire people out of work. There'a a lot of talent out there that they're missing out on.

[Jkid]

11. Either that...

or they pull this crap so they won't hire as much workers. Remember: Less workers = more profit.

[mythology]

12. Is there an effective way to stop this?

Yes you can enact a law that says companies can't say only employed candidates, but how can you actually enforce it? It's relatively easy to have a program scan the resume to see if the person is currently employed.

I suppose it could be consolidated into the gender/ethnic background check, but employment status isn't currently considered a protected class.