“Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason.”
— Job posting for a “qualified engineer”at an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, placed on The People Place, a recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries.
A Huffington Post article by Laura Bassett properly condemns this hiring requirement as offensive, irresponsible, cruel and unfair during a recession, when there is widespread unemployment. The practice would also be offensive, irresponsible, cruel and unfair during an economic boom or an eclipse of the sun. Bassett interviewed a human resources representative for Benchmark industries, which follows the same hiring policies, and its rational was this:
“It’s our preference that they currently be employed. We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed — with the economy being what it is, we’ve had a lot of people contact us that don’t have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we’re interested in.”
Ah! I understand now. You are lazy and incompetent, as well as being offensive, irresponsible, cruel and unfair! To relieve the company of having to review a lot of inappropriate applications, the inevitable result of advertising for almost any job, these companies prefer to 1) not give an opportunity to those who need it most, 2) disrupt the staff of another company, by luring away a “happy” employee, and 3) preclude finding the best possible match for its needs, who might well be unemployed, and perhaps hiring him or her at less cost to the company, since it will not have to match or surpass current salary and benefits elsewhere.
Gee. Good plan. Everybody loses: the inevitable result crossing of unethical conduct with stupidity.
There is some justice here: the jaw-droppingly inept companies using such criteria will suffer the most of all. It’s bias against the unemployed is a neon sign blinking: WARNING! UNFAIR, BRAIN-DEAD EMPLOYER! Why would any competent, clear-thinking individuals leave jobs—in a recession—where they were “happy”to go to work for a company that is run by bozos? They wouldn’t, meaning that the company run by bozos will attract only other bozos.
With a talent-avoiding process like that, it shouldn’t be long before everyone at the company is unemployed. That might remind them about something important they had forgotten: the Golden Rule.
[Ethics Alarms thanks ERE.net, whose Twitter post alerted it to this story.]
Ethics Alarms 
Angleton’s just down the road from me. Thanks for the tip! Any company whose hiring practices involve stealing employees from other companies doesn’t strike me as the kind of company I’d care to work for. When ethics are that lax in one direction, they’re liable to be reflected in other aspects as well. These things follow.
Jack, I have two concerns with your post.
First, you should be careful in your commitment to journalism. The Huffington Post is rarely a primary source for information. A small bit of digging reveals that the offending advertisement was based on a miscommunication, where the prospective employer wanted to ensure it would get applications from both the presently employed and the unemployed. See, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-jobless-need-not-apply-20100602-17,0,772600.story .
Second, you have called the employer “brain dead”, but even if the employer in question actually had as a requirement current employment, that would not necessarily be an accurate assessment. Employers use numerous market signals to weed out prospective hires; no employer wants to spend the time and money hiring someone when they are going to have to spend it all over again should the person be a bad fit. So, they use signals to increase their odds of a good fit. Common signals include GED/High School diploma (or college degree). Using that signal will certainly produce false negatives (Weed out non-degreed applicants who would be fantastic) as well as false positives (let in bums who managed to graduate). But on the whole, it lets the employer know that the narrowed pool is likely to be able to follow directions and reach a goal. Other signals could include grooming habits observed at an interview, sentence structure in a cover letter, and whether family members of the applicant also work for the employer. Each one of those signals, which might have no bearing on the skillset required for the advertised job, could increase the chance of finding the right fit. And using those signals costs less than spending 2 hours per application from each member of the entire universe of potential applicants. What you might call “lazy”, is rather cost-effective.
Current employment sends a market signal, and again, both false positives and false negatives will occur. If the signal is found to be unduly flawed in outcome, eventually it will be dropped. But, in the end, the restricted pool is more likely than the excluded pool to have a good fit.
Certainly not every employer will use this market signal, as the pool of qualified applicants might become too narrow. But what is wrong with efficient allocation of resources?
In fact, your perception of fairness to the unemployed is also misguided. Restrictive Employer A hires the employee from Employer B. Employer B now has a gap to fill and, eventually, Employer B, or downstream Employers C, D, or E will wind up hiring an unemployed person to fill the gap created. The unemployed person still has an opportunity and the economy is more efficient and able to create more wealth for everyone. Everybody wins.
Jay, I actually read the Orlando Sentinel piece before posting. 1) Being from Washington D.C., I have to say that “it was a misunderstanding” is right up there with “I was quoted out of context” and “I misspoke.” That was an awfully unequivocal advertisement. Besides, the HR person quoted by company laid out a rationale, and there was no misunderstanding that. And the rationale was brain-dead. I would not apply to a company like that.
Is the total pool of employed individuals likely to be slightly more attractive than the unemployed individuals? I have no problem with that presumption, and so what? An unemployed individual who is fully qualified should not be discriminated against because of presumption based on broad generalizations. As you point out, hiring away an employed person opens up another job, but if every employer uses the “no unemployed” approach, there are no net increases in jobs. Companies, like individuals have shared community and societal obligations to use their resources, consistent with their mission and duties to stakeholders, to help solve societal problems rather than ignore them. Excluding qualified, unemployed workers from consideration is unconscionable, and as I wrote, is also incompetent, because it makes the job search process incomplete, and less likely to find the best candidate. You could redce the pool by eye color or height too, and that would be just as arbitrary and senseless.
People in jobs during downturns may be the most unassertive employees, or the least confident, or most desperate for jobs. People out of jobs may be the most ethical (having quit unethical work-places—I did it twice), or the most entrepreneurial, or have the highest standards for employment. They may have lost their jobs due to the company’s misfortune despite stellar performance. Preferring an employed applicant, (Lianne) is legitimate, all things being equal, but all things are seldom equal. These are companies that explicitly refuse to consider unemployed workers regardless of circumstance or qualification; there is no way that can be called fair, The fact that it may work (Jay) doesn’t burnish its ethics at all.
I have to agree with Jay.
As a recruiter, I do look to see if a candidate is currently employed, and generally prefer them. Economic realities have forced a lot of companies to trim, and deadwood goes first. Which means that a lot of the unemployed are deadwood.
Employees who have managed to keep their jobs in the past few years, however, have just proven themselves to be a good investment and more likely to result in long-term success in a new position.
It’s sad, I agree, but all of my clients are businesses, not social workers.
Your business arguement is sound. But I don’t believe it supports the ethics of such a practice.
Well, I thought this was a no-brainer, but since so many people with brains seem to have trouble seeing it, I guess I’ll have to revise that verdict. But it is still obviously unfair…discrimination against the people who need jobs most without justification except convenience. It’s bias, it’s mean, and its bad citizenship. I haven’t read anything above that convinces me otherwise. How about “Ivy League grads only”? That would benefit me, (I’ve seen this restriction), but it is total, unadulterated, biased, unfair horse shit—no better that “White only” and “No Irish need apply.” It tilts the scales for the already privileged—and not necessarily smarter—people who don’t need the extra advantage.
Explain to me how “no unemployed” is any different.
I’m not defending the ethicity of the practice. I am just saying that on average the already employed make better employment candidates. Of course that says nothing about any individual candidates, but it can be an effective, tho lazy filter. And I agree with you, such practices are lazy horse shit. There are far better ways to evaluate talent.
Can I make a nomination for next week? President Obama’s “kick ass” comments, in which he alleges that he was all over the BP oil disaster, well before the press. This when the timeline of the disaster shows he was on vacation in North Carolina. Then his staff decides BP, stands for Beer Pong and are photographed playing the game shirtless… while VP Biden and Rahm Emanuel run around the White House lawn shooting each other with water guns as stories emerge about Emanuel’s ties to…wait for it…BP!
Maybe it’s not unethical to behave like a child when you’re in a position of responsibility, but it seems to me that when someone is placed in a position of trust, particularly public trust, they are held to a higher standard of conduct.
So that’s my nomination for next time.
It’s under consideration!
To all of the above, I can only say:
Interviewer: “Where are you currently employed?”
Me: “I’m self-employed.”
Interviewer: “What is your self-employed business?”
Me: “I have several focuses. 1) Professional Job Hunter 2) Video Gamer 3) Maintenance Man 4) Writing the next great American novel.”
They didn’t say you had to be employed by someone else. Self-employed are employed workers too. Additionally, there’s no indication of a requirement for your company to even be profitable to be considered your employer. So to all of those dis-heartened job seekers out there, I say plop down the money to register a business name and go get yourself an interview.
Jack, now that’s unethical. Self-employment may fit as employment under the request, but simply calling yourself self-employed as described, doesn’t pass the smell test.
While I understand you not liking current employment as a threshold requirement, there is a huge difference between disfavor and unethical. Race, gender, religion, etc., rarely bear any relation to finding a good fit for a position and lack rationale other than base preferences relative thereto. Current employment is far from those abhorrent categories. You don’t like it largely for the same reasons you don’t like “Ivy League only”, but elitism is required when seeking the elite. It may not be the best qualifier, as I previously noted regarded the use resulting in false positives and false negatives, but it’s not unethical.
Jay, you’re confusing illegal with unethical.
Unjustified bias is unfair, whether it is based on forbidden criteria (like race), or other criteria (like looks, clothing, employment status, political affiliation, etc.). Unfair=unethical. I have no trouble designating elitism, or just snobbery, as unethical.
Jack, I’m going to have to disagree. Unfair =! unethical. Is it unethical that a guy might only date a woman with a large bosom over a woman with a small one? Is it unethical that some people are born in 3rd world countries and cannot afford to emigrate to the U.S. of A.? Is it unethical that neither you or I will ever accomplish a feat meriting appearance on a box of Wheaties? Is it unethical that a first time lottery player might win the jackpot? Is it unethical when a non-smoker gets lung cancer due to non-tobacco causes while a lifelong chain smoker doesn’t? Is it unethical that few see the merit of trout ice-cream compared with chocolate, even though the trout ice-cream maker might go broke despite being the best darned trout ice-cream maker in the world? Folks might find these things unfair, but none of it is unethical.
You may as well argue that jobs shouldn’t require education, experience, or training, since some person might be naturally endowed with an ability to perform who would otherwise be selected out.
No, I wouldn’t argue that at all. I would argue, though, that none of the examples you cite involve unfairness in an ethical sense. Bad luck is not “unfair,” unless you think some cognitive entity is behind it. Personal taste is not unfair. It is not unfair that a person who doesn’t like something, for whatever reason, acts on that preference. Or another way to look at it is that unfairness in an ethical sense exists when there is an obligation to be fair. I believe that corporations have an obligation to be fair. No?
They have an obligation to be fair to their shareholders. Should they spend money to hire and train someone and then have to go out and spend it all again, when they could have used a lawful criterion that would have narrowed the pool to increase the chances of getting it right the first time? That’s unfair to the shareholders. And duty to the shareholders is a legal duty, and failure to comply is unethical.
Now now—corporate responsibility applies to the community, customers, employees, families of employees, the community, society, the industry (by setting ethical standards and culture) and the nation. And I would argue that the “employed only” criteria, by excluding a pool arbitrarily that may well include te best candidate, isn’t even responsible from the shareholders’ viewpoint. It’s lousy management.
Yeah, I have to agree with Jay. Doing what you suggest gives those of us who really are running small businesses a bad name. If you really have a business, or are genuinely trying to build one full time, you’re employed. If not—well, I once interviewed a guy who said he had been a “consultant” for a year. I asked him if there were any clients who I could call. He had never had a client. I told him he would be better served by saying he was unemployed. And dinged him.
I stand by my comment, and if the end result is that the company no longer interviews “self-employed” to get a better pool of candidates, then I think it’s a win. After that, I would encourage anyone reading this to get a part-time one shift a week job at a retailer or movie theater.
Fits the criteria doesn’t it? Try telling me that having a minimum wage job and calling yourself employed is unethical.
I wouldn’t try to tell you that…if you’re employed, you’re employed. I have more trouble with the faux self-employed strategy.
I recently hired someone who had been unemployed for a year and he is one of the most responsible people I have ever met, and incredibly perfect for the job. His old job paid significantly more than we can offer, but he took our offer because 1) it was a job in his field and 2) he would be able to use his skills and learn about something new. I know that we benefited from the bad economy. I also knew that once he started working for us, he would also get the benefits (and I’m not talking just insurance) of working for a great employer.
He also went back to school and volunteered for his old employer after being laid off — I remember hearing this ad nauseum as a “good idea” when I was looking for work eons ago in a better economy. So the company excluding the unemployed would have lost out on this prized and hard-working employee.
As an aside, as as someone who was self-employed (with clients) for 13 years , I decry the use of “self-employed” as a euphemism for “doing nothing.” Anybody who actually runs their own business, or really works freelance, knows it is a lot harder than getting up and going to work every day for one company, then coming home to relax. Guess I was lucky that the woman who hired me had a husband that worked freelance.
Final thought — someone justified the practice by saying it avoided spending two hours on each applicant. Really? My method of weeding out people is 1) are they qualified 2) do they appear to be honest and straightforward in stating their qualifications 3) will they accept our offered salary and 4) do they have mistakes in their resume or cover letter. It takes a lot less than 2 hours.
The name of this company and any other scumbag company with a policy like this should be made public so Americans can see who their enemies are. Also name the HR managers responsible for this policy.