A new type of discrimination: the unemployed
10/13/2011
It has been said that it is always easier to find a job when you have a job. Apparently that holds true more so these days than ever before.
Over the last few years, employers have been building the case to add a new type of discrimination to the law books: the unemployed. With millions of Americans out of work, it would seem to be a practical notion that the unemployed should have just as much the right to a job as someone who is currently employed, given that both have the appropriate qualifications. Unfortunately, a trend has been set among employers across the country — some even bold enough to list the requirement right in the job listing — that the job applicant must be currently employed.
Understandable with the crisis on Wall Street in 2008, there were to be some repercussions, hence the reason unemployment benefits were extended when jobs were scarce. But as the economy slowly rebounded, job cycling began. Though hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created, many employers have only been offering them to those who already had jobs — employed people moving from company to company, the jobless stuck in a cycle of rejection with their chances for employment worsening as the time gap between jobs continues to widen.
Over the years, the federal government has tried to dissuade such a manner of hiring by offering tax incentives to businesses who hire the unemployed. But a reward for doing the right thing, given the unemployed and the employed had the same qualifications, hasn’t worked. President Barack Obama even tried a punitive approach — a law that would ban employers from refusing to offer unemployed applicants a job via his jobs bill. But such a law has been called a job killer because employers may veer away from offering jobs as they come available, lest they end up in lawsuits because applicants felt they were discriminated against for not being employed.
Obama’s well-intended law appeared to be a double-edged sword, but Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the D.C.-based nonprofit, National Employment Law Project, has a different opinion on the issue. She said that even though the Senate killed the job’s bill, as long as the media continues to cover the issue, companies will pay attention. Even the job search engine, indeed.com, has recently stopped listing jobs opportunities where employers require applicants to be employed, but a random search for jobs on careerbuilder.com continues to list opportunities only for the employed. It is clear we still have a long way to go.
The bright side: such discrimination doesn’t seem to be so blatant on job postings in Ventura County. The down side: it may not be in a local job posting, but employers may still be choosing an employed applicant over an unemployed one. Whether the discrimination is blatant or hidden in the hiring process, Conti is advocating that a law be enacted to ban discrimination against the unemployed.
While we understand the problems with more government oversight, especially in this particular situation, this should be a non-issue and that is why we stand by Obama and Conti in the effort to help the unemployed re-enter the workforce. It’s absurd that so many people continue to blame the president for the stalled economy and the jobless rate when companies keep perpetuating the problem by refusing to give the unemployed a chance.
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT