Skip to main content

This morning's New York Times has a story that sounds like something out of The Onion rather than the Old Grey Lady.  It seems that a large number of unemployed Americans are finding it hard to get jobs specifically because they're unemployed.  It's a big enough problem that New York City and some other states are trying to do something about it.

New York City appears likely to adopt a law that would allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue businesses who they believe hold their unemployment status against them in making hiring decisions. The measure is widely seen as the toughest step yet in a flurry of recent efforts by the Obama administration and elected officials in at least 18 states, including New York, to help the long-term unemployed.

The District of Columbia passed a law last year that made it illegal for employers to refuse to consider or hire candidates because they were out of work, and barred advertisements from suggesting that the unemployed need not apply. Laws prohibiting discrimination in job listings have also been adopted by New Jersey and Oregon; a similar measure in California was vetoed by the governor.

It's hard to believe that there would even be a need for laws like this.  But then you find out about people like Albert Mango, who saw a "help wanted" sign at a diner.  However, when he said he was unemployed, he was told there was no position available.  Or Kevin Johnson, who got bombarded so often with questions about what he had been doing since being laid off from his cleaning-company job in September that he has to say he works off the books.

Apparently this practice has become increasingly common lately.  According to the National Employment Law Project, several companies post notices explicitly stating that the unemployed need not apply.  New York City's proposed law would not only ban that practice, but would allow applicants to sue for discrimination.  The city's Human Rights Commission could also slap fines of up to $250,000 on an offending employer.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already threatened to veto the New York City proposal, saying that it's "misguided."  Um, Mr. Mayor?  Here's what's really "misguided."  You've got people who are on the verge of losing their homes or apartments, can't put food on the table and are buried in debt because they can't get a job.  And that puts more of a burden on city services.  Plus, you'd think that Bloomberg, being a businessman, would realize it's downright silly to close the door on potential workers for something this picayune.  While Bloomberg is right that employers should be able to consider what you've been doing before you apply, you have to draw the line somewhere.  Council speaker Christine Quinn has already said that if Bloomberg vetoes this measure, she has more than enough support to override it.  The law passed by a veto-proof margin of 44-4 (an override requires only 34 votes).

Originally posted to Christian Dem in NC on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:34 AM PST.

Also republished by Unemployment Chronicles.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Considering that (8+ / 0-)

    posters on this website who specialize in human resources or are involved in interviewing/hiring say that they consider the unemployed to be the worst of the lot in an applicant pool, none of what you write about is surprising.

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:46:49 AM PST

  •  What fixes this is more jobs then people... (6+ / 0-)

    It's unseemly, but seems to me driving it underground just wastes the time of the person applying. I'd rather know before I apply that the company is run by idiots.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:49:28 AM PST

    •  I understand your point of view. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b, RiveroftheWest

      It seems to me that discrimination against the unemployed would be a lot easier for a company to put a fig-leaf over than discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, etc.

      Prior employment status seems like something that can be made relevant to a job (for legal purposes) in ways that other protected statuses can't be.... companies could just say the person who got the job had a more recent skill set, or better references, or something like that.

      I'm trying to think about how a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against the unemployed would succeed... but then, I'm no lawyer or HR person, so I'd be interested to see arguments for a different view.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:58:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The next thing they need to do is restrict (23+ / 0-)

    the use of credit reports for employment, unless it can be shown that the applicant has direct access to money, and could potentially misuse their position to help themselves.  

    Few if any long-term unemployed will be able to meet the bar of "perfect credit" or even "acceptable credit" scores, and it will be another avenue for employers to discriminate against the unemployed.  

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:49:46 AM PST

  •  Umm... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ffour, theboz
    It seems that a large number of unemployed Americans are finding it hard to get jobs specifically because they're unemployed.
    Bullshit. These folks are having trouble landing a job because there aren't any jobs.

    If we could divert just a little bit of our productivity increases back to workers, where it would spur demand, employers would start hiring again.

    Until then, we can rearrange the deck chairs however we like, but the ship's still going down.

  •  Instead hire people unhappy with their jobs (12+ / 0-)

    The converse of not hiring the unemployed is only hiring the employed. Naturally, this begs the question as to why they are even looking for a new job in the first place? Do they hate their boss? Their co workers? Is the pay too low and/or the benefits nonexistent or meager? The other overlooked aspect of this incredibly myopic business strategery (sic) is that potential employers are only considering people who are disloyal to their current employers.

  •  Just another in a long line of methods (4+ / 0-)

    to ensure that nobody but the "job craters" have jobs in the end. What nirvana that will be for the final few owners left on the planet.

    What other effect than that can there be if you project "unemployed need not apply" to its final conclusion? Most everybody finds themselves unemployed at one time or another, don't they?

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:54:16 AM PST

  •  This feels like "water is wet" news, but it isn't (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akeitz, FloridaSNMOM, FG, RiveroftheWest

    The good news about this is that the problem, which has been chronic in American business (I know, since I experienced it during the first six months of 1988) forever, has now become serious enough that people have NOTICED it. And of course Mayor Moneybags doesn't like it because of Loechner (1905) which has been defunct since 1937.

    Watch, and if anyone says "liberty of contract" that's Loechner. And now I have this week's US since 1865 diary, too. Thanks, XDem in NC.

    -7.75, -8.10; . . . Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall (h/t cooper888)

    by Dave in Northridge on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:54:39 AM PST

  •  sadly the unemployment ranks are so swollen (10+ / 0-)

    that employers can now impose their own criteria for employment, even when it is loopy.  I talked to an employer who told me the logic is that anyone who is good is snapped up immediately by another company while anyone who is not snapped up and languishes w/o a job must "have something wrong with him"

    In this economy that means connections.  To keep my kids employed, we have done various things such as my reaching out to people and even employing the kids (they are 24-27 in age) myself or putting the arm on people I do a significant amount of business with (not so easy now I am disabled)

    The problem is with the death of American heavy industry, full employment may never be a possibility again  

  •  I seriously doubt that 'being able to sue' for (6+ / 0-)

    discrimination is going to help anything.  For one the person filing will need to have the money to either file themselves or get a lawyer to do so.  Then have the money to sustain a lawsuit.  That ain't gonna happen.  If the lawsuit were to get anywhere, the discriminated person will basically be blacklisted from ever working in that area again.  Do you know how many lawsuits that could have been filed for anything from hostile work environment to basic racial discrimination but haven't because it'd pretty much ruin the plantiff's life??

  •  Part of the problem here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dov12348, ColoTim, Victor Ward, VClib, MGross

    is that it really matters WHY an applicant is unemployed, and it's extremely difficult for a prospective employer to find that out.  

    A person who was laid off because a prior employer was downsizing, or business was down, or whatever, is in a completely different situation (speaking as an employer) from a person who was let go because they kept coming in late, or missed too much work, or kept making mistakes on the job, or couldn't perform certain tasks.  

    The problem from the employer's perspective is that it is very often impossible to be able to tell the difference.  Certainly, the employee is never going to say, I was let go from my last job because I was always late, or because I kept making mistakes, or I didn't get along with my co-workers, or my boss thought my attitude was bad, or whatever.   The problem is that, because of fear of lawsuits from former employees, former employers aren't going to tell you that, either.  (Most former employers nowadays will only provide the former employee's dates of employment, position, and salary -- no references good or bad.)

    Sorting through resumes and interviewing is often a time-consuming process that takes away from other activities that make money for the business.  When there is an oversupply in the labor pool, it is far easier to simply eliminate groups where you are less likely to find an acceptable candidate.  That's the unfortunate reality, but that exists.

    I think I would be ok with a situation where it was prohibited to say, "unemployed need not apply."  But this goes too far:

    allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue businesses who they believe hold their unemployment status against them in making hiring decisions.
    So, now if I choose to hire someone who is currently employed over someone who is currently unemployed, I run the risk of having a lawyer go through my thought processes and having to justify whether or not I "held the unemployment" against them?  That tells me that if I interview someone who is unemployed, and he/she doesn't get the job, I run the risk of a lawsuit where I have to explain my subjective views of the all the people I interviewed and why the unemployed person didn't get the job.  (And what if the person is unemployed because he was fired from his last job because he didn't get along with his co-workers or his boss?  Can I get sued if I "hold that against him"?) That doesn't make me MORE likely to interview someone who is unemployed.  
    •  I think you're taking it too far (4+ / 0-)

      If you brought that unemployed person into the hiring process -- accepted their resume, did an interview, checked their references and so on -- then I would say that you've made a good case that you did not automatically eliminate that person due to their unemployed status.

      Putting someone into the hiring process costs time and money.  You proved that you did expend that effort, and the applicant simply lost out to a better fit.  Happens all the time.

      The problem that's being addressed here is the problem of "persons not currently employed need not apply."  or "I'm sorry, we can't consider anyone who cannot verify current employment," or other HR-ese of that sort.  Blatant discrimination, in other words, on par with "Irish need not apply," or having a "Help Wanted" sign in the window that mysteriously becomes a "mistake" when the unemployed person comes looking.

      History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

      by stormicats on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:39:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's an argument (6+ / 0-)

        for a law that says, you can't say "unemployed need not apply."  I'm fine with that.  

        What I think goes too far is a law that says, an unsuccessful applicant can sue if he/she thinks the unemployment was held against him/her.  

        I'm a lawyer.  I know enough about employment law to know what that means.  It means that if I interview two people, one employed, and one unemployed, and the employed person gets the job, I'm likely to see a lawsuit where I have to start justifying why I chose to interview these people and why I chose candidate "A" over candidate "B"  (especially if candidate B thinks he/she was "better qualified," which is often a subjective conclusion).    

        On the other hand, if I get 100 resumes, and just choose 3 people to interview, and they all happen to be employed, I probably don't get sued.  Unless the law is so extreme that anybody who sends me a resume can sue to have me justify whether I considered his/her unemployment status in deciding who to interview?

        •  Okay, I understand what you are saying (0+ / 0-)

          And yes, it probably does go too far unless they are very careful in defining the criteria under which a lawsuit can be filed.

          But realize what a barrier this is for the plaintiff.  They have to prove that they were so completely qualified for the position, so perfect a fit for the company and so compatible with their potential supervisor and co-workers that ONLY consideration of their employment status  could have kept them from being hired.  Not a skills mismatch (you know Exchange Server 2003 but you've never worked on Exchange Server 2010), not availability factors (the other person will have less of a commute, has no problem working weekends, didn't seem to worry about changing shifts), not adaptability (I need someone who can hit the ground running, not take three months to grow into the job),  not even "I just don't feel you're the right person for this job," or any other of the many reasons job seekers are given for having been passed over.  

          That's an insanely high bar to have to get over.  Only the most egregious, in-your-face cases of discrimination are going to get past it.  And those are the ones that need to be litigated.  Assuming the potential plaintiffs can afford to pursue them -- another very high bar.

          What this boils down to is that for the vast majority of the unemployed, this is "feel good" legislation.  It's not going to fix anything but the most glaring instances of "employment discrimination" if you will.  The place of business with the "help wanted" sign in the window, but no job for the unemployed person who walks in ready to go to work.  The advertisement that requests currently employed candidates only.  The automatic rejection that states, "We are looking for currently employed or recently graduated candidates only."  For the subtler, less blatant practices, there will always be another Very Good Reason why the unemployed candidate simply didn't make the cut.

          History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

          by stormicats on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:30:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  As a lawyer, you know that unless there is a (0+ / 0-)

          penalty adequate to assure the desired outcome, that outcome won't happen.  It's not enough to tell employers that they're not allowed to let the world know that they discriminate by including 'do not apply' language in want ads.  It is the discrimination itself, not the owning up to it, that needs to be stopped.

          If an employer can't be sued for discrimination, he will discriminate.  The problem isn't solved with rules regarding postings.

        •  This legislation will create jobs. (0+ / 0-)

          Trial lawyer jobs.  That's the real motivation.

        •  Is that true? (0+ / 0-)

          A lawyer would take a case consisting of one person being hired over another? That seems like a pretty bad bet.

          We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

          by denise b on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:16:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How about the law preventing racial discrimination (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Should we dump law that because of the inconvenience of these pesky lawsuits?
          How about the laws mandating handicapped access to bathrooms?
          How about the laws preventing Jim Crow hurdles to voting?
          Coffee - you've got a long history of opposing progressive action.
          How about the laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation? Or age?
          They're the same thing.
          What kind of a lawyer are you? Who do you represent?

    •  When I was laid off... (6+ / 0-)

      I work in law.  When I was laid off in late 2009, my (now former) employer gave me a letter stating that I had lost my job because of staff reductions, and not because of my performance, and inviting prospective employers to call to verify.  

      I knew prospective employers frowned on gaps in resumes, so I registered with temp agencies thinking I could get assignments here and there while looking for permanent work, which would make it easier for me to answer the dreaded "What have you been doing" question that I knew I'd eventually be asked.  

      Trouble is, nobody wanted to pay temps, so I only got a few days' work in 6 months.  

      I sent out resumes every day, to law firms, companies and agencies; I answered ads and made cold calls.  I got, on average, one interview each calendar month.  In every single interview the interviewer brought up the horrible job market, and how the legal field was tanking.  It was all anyone was talking about.  (I didn't mention it -- you can't be negative in an interview, remember?  Happy unemployed me, I'd be so excited for you to pay me 25% less than my last job paid!)

      Almost six months into my unemployment, an agency called me about a permanent position.  A law firm had agreed to interview me, but the HR person at the firm wanted to know what I'd been doing for the past six months.  In a field that everyone knew was tanking!


      I was able to turn down the interview because I was going through the hiring process with another company; they had offered me a position a few days earlier.  So much for the theory that someone out of work for that long must be unemployable.


  •  I bet there are an enormous number... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleeding blue, NYFM, ladybug53

    ...of related suicides out there that no one's keeping track of.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:39:28 AM PST

  •  This is so, so execrable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, ladybug53

    I was going to use the word "shitty," but thought better of it.

    If potential employers aren't bright enough to figure out that large numbers of people have been laid off for no fault of their own, then they shouldn't be in business in the first place.

    If someone is fired for cause, that's completely different from being laid off!  One would think there would be some tiny measure of empathy for people unfortunate enough to be laid off, but no--even if someone invented a daily empathy pill to be taken with water not more than 10 minutes before breakfast, it wouldn't get any better.

    I don't know how people are going to survive.  I have visions of people thinking "out of the box"--"Okay, no job but we have a house that's paid for, we can invite another family to share our house, we can forage for food, look for stuff to sell, etc."  I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that capitalism is the nastiest, greediest, most hateful system ever devised.  Look at this once-great country and the shape it's in now.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:59:24 AM PST

    •  In California you cannot say why a person left (0+ / 0-)

      In California the only reference you can give, and stay within the legal "safe harbor", is the day the person started, the day they left and the jobs titles they had while in your employment. You cannot give any subjective reference without exposing yourself to a lawsuit.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:49:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just thinking out loud - I completely understand (0+ / 0-)

        'former' companies only providing start/end dates, job titles and maybe salary for the law suit thing.  In the 'right to work' states anyone can be fired for anything under the sun.  I wouldn't be surprised if people would put down 'laid off' instead of 'fired with cause' on their applications in those states (or any state for that matter), knowing that the previous company isn't going to say boo about it.  So, the 'new' company ends up with a bad seed after having spent time and money finding 'this' person and now has to go through it again because the person really shouldn't be in that field of work.  Is there any 'legal' way to find out if the person had been fired??  What about looking up unemployment benefits???  Can that be done??

        •  who says everyone who is fired is a bad seed? (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe their manager was a drunk. (Been there.)

          Maybe their team lead was a drug addict. (also been there)

          Maybe there was a personality conflict that had nothing to do with the job at all. (also been there)

          Was depressed and male - FMLA wouldn't save them because men are supposed to just suck it up. (also been there)

          Personal relationship (gay/interracial couple) was not approved of by management. (RTW state)

          Wore the wrong shoes. (RTW state)

          Got the wrong haircut. (RTW state)

          Didn't laugh at the sexist joke the boss made. (RTW state)

          Saved the company money and didn't let management take credit. (RTW state)

          Cried after being publicly humiliated by the manager for a mistake the manager made. (RTW state)

          These are all real examples that I have seen personally or been subject to myself.  It doesn't make me or any of those people a bad employee at all - just a person in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Most of these issues had to do with the psychological problems of the people IN management - not the employees at all.

          So how are any of those "causes" related in any way to performance, skill set or indicators of how well they will or won't perform if given an opportunity elsewhere?

          Hint: none of them.

          And what about privacy?  Doesn't the worker have a right to privacy?

          And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

          by Mortifyd on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:48:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  In my field (IT) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      there's a certain presumption that a layoff is an opportunity to clear out the dead wood, that the most valued people will be retained and the least valued let go.

      In fact, during the past 10 years or so before every layoff the managers got together and ranked the entire staff in numerical order, and laid people off from the bottom of the list.

      I'm sure some things - particular skill sets or knowledge or the importance of current work underway - other than ability went into the ranking. And I certainly didn't always agree with the managers' opinions; I saw some really excellent people get let go that for some reason were undervalued.  I got laid off myself from a job where I was fairly new and hadn't proved my worth yet, although I was sure I would have in time. But in any case, rightly or wrongly, hiring managers do make the assumption that if someone was really good they would have been retained.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:29:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Capitalism vs unregulated capitalism (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with you, but "capitalism" and "free enterprise" weren't always dirty words. Why have good, honest, enterprising business owners been replaced by greedy, grasping, heartless corporate shitheads who mistreat and fire employees just to make a few more pennies?

  •  When the dot com world went bust, my downsizing (6+ / 0-)

    employer had a job fair where other employers could come in and interview those who would need a new job.  Naturally, all the still-employed people also went, as they knew that they might be next to be downsized.  The only people to receive offers were those my company had determined to be worth keeping.  The ones being downsized never received callbacks or offers.  It makes sense, but it sucked.

    I wound up being hired back on while the company went on with its death spiral, but I got a few more months out of it.

    I can see both sides to this, but I think employers saying "unemployed need not apply" is a sign that the company treats its employees poorly.

  •  Why would you hire somebody already employed? (0+ / 0-)

    Poaching other employers even competitors doesn't sound
    ethical or likely to create loyal employees.
    Maybe there is so much corporate churning that this is the only way HR can contact a previous boss or it could be a reflection of networking where lazy bosses ask employees refer their friends. People out of work tend to lose working friends. Cheaper than a job agency.
    These practices are probably considered 'efficient'.
    The government should require employers to hire from the
    long-termed unemployed pool. It is in everyone's long term interest to reduce this problem.

    •  A well-meaning but terrible idea. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The government should require employers to hire from the long-termed unemployed pool.
      And what of those who are honestly looking to improve their employment situation, or who have taken temporary part-time work just to pay the bills while looking for full-time work?

      What about those who have been out of work for only a little while?

      What about those in high-demand occupations?

      You would honestly tell those who are trying to change jobs, even if they're not a good fit or don't have any advancement opportunities where they are, that they can't get a job somewhere else until they get in the back of the line and wait several years making no money?

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:55:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Gee, I'd like to hire you but the government is (0+ / 0-)

        making me hire this long term unemployed guy." versus
        " Gee, I'd like to hire you because you are not laid off or fired although you dissatified with your current boss ".
        There's an assumption that you are more deserving than the other guy though you are less loyal.
        It seems like you are cutting in line to avoid waiting your turn for opportunity. If you believe in equal opportunity
        you won't cut in line.
        Or is it, "I gotta do what I gotta do"?

        •  How about "Gee, I'd like to hire you... (0+ / 0-)

 I'm going to hire you, because you're the best person for the job"?

          My assumption as someone who has engaged in hiring is that I'll be able to hire the person I think is best for the position, no matter what their current employment status.

          Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who gets a job while they're currently employed, instead of waiting for several years until people who have been out of work for a longer period of time have gotten jobs, is "cutting in line" and denying others an "equal opportunity"?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:59:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gee I'd like to hire you but you are overqualified (0+ / 0-)

            for this job" sounds more likely to happen. I wonder how
            many people hired have been told "I hired you because
            you're the best person for the job"? I can't imagine that.

            •  Depends on the job and the situation. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enemy of the people

              Regardless, it's still a terrible idea for the government to force companies to hire from the long-term unemployed, and thus force people who want to change jobs for any reason to "wait their turn" for years until they come up on the "permitted to hire" list.

              If you need no other reason to see this as a bad idea, just think about how many companies would see it as license to pile even more abuse on their current employees, knowing that the employees would be legally barred from finding another job for years if they quit.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 05:33:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  fifteen months and counting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, ladybug53

    trying to keep programming and database skills up, but nobody seems to care.

    you might as well be dead in 'tech' after age 40.

    •  I was well over 50, a programmer / DBA (4+ / 0-)

      And out of work for 37 months before getting hired as a software validation engineer (i.e., "tester") at a small Linux-based hardware company.

      During much of that time I went to the local community college to retrain as a network engineer, having gotten a state retraining grant to cover the tuition, books, and a small stipend each quarter.

      And I still had to go sell my weak-assed self at Labor Ready for four or five months before landing that job.

      Ageism is rampant in technology, but it's not wholly overcomeable.

      Under SOPA, you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song. That's one more year than the doctor who killed him.

      by Charles CurtisStanley on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:27:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where are you located? (0+ / 0-)

      If you are willing to relocate I see a lot of DBA work in Texas, some full time some contract.  If you have experience with Oracle especially you are set.

    •  I was out for 22 months after being laid off from (0+ / 0-)

      the last place (they decided a 3rd party vendor for maintenance and development would be cheaper than in house - 4 years later, they still haven't broken even).  When I got laid off, I went back to school to 'learn' pc languages (I'm mainframe).

      I kept getting you're over qualified or you don't know anything about programming (despite over 13 years as a mainframe programmer applying for a 'pc' language job).  Finally got the contract job because I knew what I was doing in cobol and data base conversions.  They wanted someone with a clue.  Now, the project has been put on pause and I fear that I'll be out of work at the end of the month (been on the contract for just over 15 months).

      Once I got the contract job, I became a little more selective in where I put applications in.  But, I'm still getting some interviews.  I'm feverently hoping for an invite for a second interview, at the very least, or an offer sometime in the next week or two.  I'm in the second half of the 40's now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site