Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dsthompson
“Unfortunately, refusing to hire or even just interview someone who has been out of work for an extended period of time, in the economy, is as stupid, short sighted and ignorant as is refusing to do so because of their color or religion, etc.”

No it isn't. The vast majority of those on long term unemployment are lazy or unskilled and unhireable. They call in sick, come in late, and look for any excuse to fake an injury and go on workmans comp.

There has been many studies on the subject and the numbers don't lie.

It is just like those with bad credit being charged more for home and auto insurance, they on average turn in a ton of claims and engage in the majority of fraud cases.

57 posted on 09/26/2011 12:22:25 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Beagle8U

you forgot those who sue their employeers. If you are unemployeed there is a chance you previously sued your employer for some reason. How much of the layoffs in 2008 were a way to clean house from the deadweights?


60 posted on 09/26/2011 12:26:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Beagle8U

The government has no business creating the unemployed as a “protected” class. But there is a difference between having a company policy that no unemployed need apply and choosing a employed candidate over a unemployed candidate. If a company is trying to fill a slot with a hard to find tech skill set it is cutting its legs off by having a no unemployed need apply policy.They will never see the resume. The worst that will happen is they will have to interview a unemployed person and the interview will confirm he is not employable. Same applies in trying to fill a sales slot and not interviewing a laid off supersalesman whose company went out of biz which is quite common nowadays. A company that has a no unemployed need apply basically is limiting its pool of potential
opportunities for fear of having to read a resume from such a person. Quite honestly, I would fire a human resources manager if they were that lazy and bureaucratically inflexible. Having said that, the government has no business legislating against my HR manager’s stupidity.


77 posted on 09/26/2011 1:07:43 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Beagle8U
I might agree with you if you are not counting the under-employed. My wife just got laid off. In this economy I would expect that it will take a very long time to find something even remotely close to what she did before.

So would you hold it against her if she volunteered for a charity and wrote a technical book during her unemployment time???? Would you not hire her, just because her company went under through no fault of hers and she ends up out of work for a year?
84 posted on 09/26/2011 1:28:10 PM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson