New Way Employers Discriminate Against The Unemployed?

[duffyduff]

No surprise employers find all kinds of creative ways to weed out the "undesirables":

Job ads that list "current employment" as a requirement are becoming less common, thanks to a chorus of outrage, and laws declaring it illegal discrimination in several states. But some employers are adopting a new approach-- requiring applicants to have "a stable work history" -- which may, in essence, serve the same purpose: To weed out the unemployed.

The Porter Group, a sales management recruiting firm with $3.4 million in revenue (as of 2008) and offices in New Jersey and Maryland, has over three dozen ads on its job listing board that mention stability as a requirement, from "stable experience" and "very stable work history," to "must be stable" and "STABLE." One of the ads says bluntly that only "currently employed" workers should apply, but the other ads stress stability. For example:


Well funded, research driven Pharmaceutical Company seeks a sales representative with 2+ years of documented, STABLE success in Business-to-Business sales for a Baltimore and Annapolis territory. Sell established products! Opportunity is open due to recent promotions. Qualified candidates MUST have a 4-year degree and stable work history.

More:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/16/employers-discriminate-unemployed-stable-work-history/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

[badtoworse]

1. As a practical matter, it wouldn't make much difference.

Even if the ads did not say that, an unemployed person is at a severe disadvantage competing against employed applicants who want to change jobs. I've been there and it sucks. It was like that 30 years ago, but it's likely worse in this job market.

[duffyduff]

2. It's a thousand times worse because there are very few jobs to be had. n/t