Sunday, October 23, 2011
If You Are Employed You Need Not Apply to this Job Posting! If You Are Employed Read This?
Is the issue at hand really discrimination or is it the fact that these ads are risking job productivity for companies? Many companies are beginning to realize that there is no basis for discriminatory ads that aim to exclude individuals they label as unemployed. Advertising of this nature is not only offensive to the professional seeking work but the ads are counterproductive for the company, and are an OXYMORON. According to the NY Daily News article, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s office found at least 18 New York jobs requesting that “unemployed need not apply.” Stringer wants all discriminatory job ads banned.
Shouldn't the ads really read "If You Are Employed, You Need Not Apply?" Wouldn't this help corporate America stay productive? Searching for a job is a full-time job. Isn't it really a "slap-in-the-face" to a corporation when hiring managers' job postings exclude the unemployed yet promote full time employees? Aren't they suppose to be paid to work and focus on their jobs not looking for another job at work? In terms of costing companies thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in productivity, I certainly think so.
I have one simple question regarding "unemployed need not apply" job postings: "What defines "unemployed?" An employed person who has nothing else to do on the job but search for another job or a professional that hiring managers punish and label as "unemployed" yet seeking employment is more 24/7 than 9 to 5? Can another valid issue be that there are too many inexperienced or "overemployed workers" in the job market? There is truth to the fact that those unemployed tend to be the ones that really excel at work, and their superior is threatened that they can do their job and for less compensation, so they get let go.
Are hiring managers and human resources that blinded that they don't understand the hard fact that being unemployed is more challenging than full-time employment? Who do we blame – Washington DC or corporate America? How about blaming both?
Why is Washington DC still allowing businesses to post discriminatory ads to the effect that "unemployed need not apply?" This is one monumental time that I believe our government must intervene to end this counterproductive activity. Doesn't corporate America realize that by posting discriminatory ads of this nature, that they are not only hindering opportunities for professionals seeking employment but they are also decreasing corporate productivity? Encouraging full time employees to apply to job postings is not only counter-productive but it questions whether employees on the job are:
►satisfied with their work
►motivated to stay focused
►using time on the job to apply for other jobs
►aware of the consequences of low productivity
►dedicated and skilled to get the job done
According to the NY Daily News article President Obama has included a ban on employment status discrimination in his jobs bill but parties are quarreling over it. Even if this bill goes into effect, how can this be monitored? How do we prevent “we the unemployed” from being discriminated even with a ban on discriminatory job ads?
It is about time that Washington DC, corporate America, and hiring managers realize that reinventing yourself costs time, money and deserves respect and appreciation.
Unfortunately the term "reinventing yourself" has evolved into becoming nothing but a negative implication and a huge farce in the business world. Thanks to all those baseless, discriminatory job ads which not only create the wrong messages to the job market but are a tremendous disservice to the culture, communications, productivity and philosophy of their company.
Discriminating against the unemployed not only adds injury to insult (yes, not the other way around) but also illustrates corporate ignorance and total disregard for the true key contributors in Corporate America - the real professionals, the risk takers, the innovators, the marketing professionals, the communicators, the solutions providers, the ones who aren’t afraid to stand up to the issues and speak up when bottom line is compromised, the story tellers, etc. Labeled "unemployed" yet more qualified and more equipped to perform any high level job currently paying $250,000 for half that salary. These inappropriately labeled, professional job seekers are the ones who change jobs, work in different fields, learn new things, are flexible and open to change, and have the incredible business acumen with superior skill set that businesses really need to improve productivity and increase profits. And they do it with accuracy, in half the time and for half the salary.
Many of what "the unemployed" have are what the "the full-time employed" need to have but simply lack. The "we-the-unemployed” are the key contributors and money-makers for Corporate America -- NOT the full-time employees who are at the same company for years, sitting at their desks pretending to be busy (no offense to the full-time workers, I am aware some of you really do work).
Why on earth do you believe there is very low morale among full time workers and why companies need to hire consultants? No it is not just to save money on benefits, that is a bargain mechanism for compensation. It is because their existing full-time employees are overconfident and really do not know what they are doing! Could it be that the employee wants to learn what the consultant does without adequately compensating? Isn't it about time that consultants stop being exploited for the sake of a corporation keeping an incompetent and unskilled full-time employee?
When are Washington DC, human resources and hiring managers going to accept the fact that being in a mid-level management or VP level job for years doesn't equate to doing the job or having the skills and competence to do the job (whether in a job for 1 or 40 years)?
When are human resources and hiring managers going to fess up to the fact that just because one is over 50 years old and not in a permanent position that that does not equate to lack of skill set or experience? Hiring managers and human resources need experienced workers, workers who:
►do the job more effectively and efficiently than existing employees
►identify errors and prevent errors from reoccurring
►provide many solutions to existing problems
►communicate effectively at all corporate levels (hey, somebody has to do it)
I've been on both sides - experienced being a full time employee and a consultant. I still wonder when are human resources and corporate America going to face the fact that it's not the economy's fault that their company’s error rate is highest and the productivity rate is the lowest at their company.
Much of the problem lies in companies’ dysfunctional and inadequate infrastructure and attitude that our company is too big (or too small) to fail and somehow, someway, Uncle Sam will bail us out again. This stigma is what hinders everything and every decision made on behalf of the organization.
It is unfortunate the previous bailout monies did nothing but help the already wealthy, well-connected, the ivy leaguers (and some non-ivy leaguers), the nepotism clan, and other general employees who are vested with the company. The wrong monies in the wrong places is another reason there are not enough jobs out there.
I was debating whether I should post this to my blog. If I do, it will potentially, negatively impact my job search for permanent employment; But then again, somebody has to do it!
LINKS TO OTHER RELATED RESOURCES
The Life Report by David Brooks Whether you are over 70 or in your 20s just starting out, you should read this and the comments. The Life Report is filled with very thought provoking articles and there was one which really made me question are professionals and executives in jobs for years really boring? If you haven't done so already, you should check this out.