The Unemployment Situation II

[CGHulk]

Well my father was laid off today from Blue-Cross of California, sending all of their jobs off to Manila Philippines! Most of the people he worked with are single mothers! You gotta love corporate greed!

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Congratulations are in order for Illinois' War on Jobs.

California is following suit. Maybe even Obama.

That's impossible--it's gotta be something else. Tax hikes only affect government coffers . . . they have no effect on employment, because they have no effect on a company's bottom line. Since all companies (particularly evil corporations) have a money tree on the premises, more money going to the government doesn't mean less money to pay employees with.

[wiegeabo]

Chaulk another victory up to California's business unfriendly environment.

I love my state, we're usually the most progressive socially. But we don't know how to run a business worth a damn.

[Marx]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AGAINST JOBLESS SHOULD BE BANNED
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_942359.html

[bell110]

I seriously want to know what the logic is behind "unemployed need not apply".

[BlackLantern]

Originally Posted by bell110

I seriously want to know what the logic is behind "unemployed need not apply".

Probably so they don't get flooded with resumes, or unqualified people applying.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by bell110

I seriously want to know what the logic is behind "unemployed need not apply".

Me too.

[chaseter]

If you were the owner of a business and you had a job opening...who are you going to hire:

Someone with a degree that was fired but found a job at Target until they could find a better job,

or

Someone with a degree that was fired and got on unemployment for 99 weeks for whatever reason?

[Marx]

The qualifications remain the same.

[Franklin Richards]

He was forced to pay the government that unemployment money and now you're saying he shouldn't make the government give it back to him?


I thought you guys were against the government taking what doesn't belong to them? Why gimp a man who's just getting what's his?

[NHawk19]

Not really. They're looking for people with drive and assuming that a lot of those that were cut and did nothing were dead weight at their previous job. It might not be fair and I hope I never have to go through it but that's what it is.

[chaseter]

A 2 year gap in employment is not the same qualifications. You hire the person BEST suited for the position. If they have the same background and the only thing that separates them is their job history, well then that is a difference in qualifications.

But...that doesn't matter. This is all just smoke and mirrors do you know why? Because it's not like there are more jobs if we start hiring the unemployed. If someone currently working at Target goes to work at Wells Fargo, then someone will be hired to replace them at Target. It's all just a political ploy to rally support for a voting block.

[Marx]

I think it's incredibly insulting to suggest that those who are unemployed through no fault of their own have no drive or less of a drive than someone else.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

He was forced to pay the government that unemployment money and now you're saying he shouldn't make the government give it back to him?


I thought you guys were against the government taking what doesn't belong to them? Why gimp a man who's just getting what's his?

What on Earth are you talking about

[NHawk19]

they really need to just boost the infrastructure portion. That money hits about 10-30 different companies depending on the size and scope of the project. That's the only thing short of decreasing spending and taxes that will make people warm and fuzy enough to start spending again.

[NHawk19]

Originally Posted by Marx

I think it's incredibly insulting to suggest that those who are unemployed through no fault of their own have no drive or less of a drive than someone else.

I didnt say it was fair. I said that's one of the ways they are judging. They're looking for proof that you're trying to do something and not just sitting by collecting unemployment. It sucks but if you've been out of work for a while its true.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Marx

I think it's incredibly insulting to suggest that those who are unemployed through no fault of their own have no drive.

You mean to tell me that if offered two candidates that only differ in their work history, that you would deny the person who took a 75% pay cut to work at Burger King for 2 years as opposed to a person who has been on unemployment for 2 years? Really?

I would hire the guy that worked at Burger King. You know what that says about that candidate? It says that he is a hard worker, determined, and has resolve. It's just not worth the risk to try and weed out the ones who cannot work because there are actually zero jobs from the ones who choose not to work because it isn't something they want to do or have a degree in.

And again, it doesn't matter. There are still going to be the exact same number of jobs. Hiring the guy who works at Burger King over the guy on unemployment for 99 weeks isn't going to change the state of our economy and create more jobs out of thin air. This is all a political ruse.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by NHawk19

I didnt say it was fair. I said that's one of the ways they are judging. They're looking for proof that you're trying to do something and not just sitting by collecting unemployment. It sucks but if you've been out of work for a while its true.

...but you're furthering this notion that just because someone is unemployed and collecting unemployment that means they're sitting at home on their butt doing nothing. In the larger majority of cases, that couldn't be farther from the truth. People are looking and applying for job after job only to get nothing. Looking for a job has become a full-time job in and of itself.

[NHawk19]

It can be but when places are flooded with 2000 applicants for one position they have to find ways to quickly rule people out. Unforetunately I've heard from some people in HR that if people didnt step back and look at lowes for burger king and instead kept collecting for the bulk of the 99 weeks they could that they are placed further down the list.

The notion is that in the first round the "dead weight" went first, and those that werent were quickly snached up. Like I said it's unfortunate.

People should consider taking lesser positions or re-training if they can though to try and ditch some of the stigma. Even if they were taking courses and not working it could help boost them.

[chaseter]

It's how HR has always operated. They look at gaps in employment. It's about hiring the best person for the job and if everyone's credentials are exactly the same, then it comes down to work history.

[Marx]

UPDATE: AUGUST JOBS REPORT CONTINUES TO DISAPPOINT
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/31/news....htm?hpt=hp_t2

[NHawk19]

Well it's going to get interesting. They did note the Verizon Strike which is coming to an end, but now construction season is due to draw to a close in 8 weeks. So road and infrastructure projects will no doubt see their seasonal lay-offs.

On a bright note at the same time we should also see an up tick in Xmas seasonal employment offers.

[Handsome Rob]

Being totally unemployed or without a job for two years, short of having a severe medical crisis or being held hostage by Iran, is utterly inexcusable. You can look for a job while employed part time or full time--I looked for, interviewed for, and was hired for my current job while I was working full time (with plenty of overtime each month). You can even go into business for yourself.

I would hire someone with slightly weaker or even weaker job skills who looked for work while flipping burgers at McDonalds during the day and delivering pizzas at night for two years over someone who held absolutely no job over the same two year period and was living off unemployment.

To me, the first employee places a value on the idea and importance of work, even if it's something he doesn't really want to do--that smacks of a strong work ethic. I figure he can and will learn whatever he's lacking. The second employee appears to place a value on doing only what he wants to do, and he is willing to mostly mooch off of the state/federal gov't (translation: me, the taxpayer) for two years until he gets what he wants.

[amazingfantasy15]

There's something everyone is forgetting about when they're talking about the white collar worker who's laid off and then works at McDonald's or Target or anything like that. They're overqualified for that job, it's not going to challenge them. When my dad lost his job a few years ago, part of his search did include places retail type places, they wouldn't hire him because he was too educated.

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by amazingfantasy15

There's something everyone is forgetting about when they're talking about the white collar worker who's laid off and then works at McDonald's or Target or anything like that. They're overqualified for that job, it's not going to challenge them. When my dad lost his job a few years ago, part of his search did include places retail type places, they wouldn't hire him because he was too educated.

If it's putting food on the table for the time being, who cares if it "challenges them?" I'd be bored to tears working on the floor of Wal-Mart or a grocery store. But, I'd do it if that's what I had to do.

You do make a good point about the "too educated" part, though. It will probably keep them out of some jobs. But, that's where the entrepreneurial spirit can come in. If you can't get a job, you can always go into business for yourself. Wash cars, mow lawns and do yardwork, start your own same-day courier service, etc. Even if all those ventures eventually fail, at least you tried. That counts for something.