What do you think about employers refusing to hire people who are unemployed?

Dan, I agree it is an employers market but why do some employers use such an ineffective screening process?

I think its woefully short-sited and both unfair to those individuals but to the economy as well.

Ira is right. I'd like to add that those people who are practicing that approach should end up the subject of that approach.... The old cliché, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander..."

This attitude is a reflection of the economic conditions in the US in the wake of the 2008-9 financial implosion. A soft labor market with chronic 9% and higher unemployment rate means it is an employers market.

Yet, just before the 2000 dot-com implosion, it was a job seekers market. In Silicon Valley circa 1998-2000, you had an employment rate hovering around 3%, which is effectively full employment. In that tight labor market, you had to "shrink to fit" your hiring aspirations.

This meant that you might start giving preference to candidates that were unemployed just to close the time-to-fill gap. You were faced with the trade-off of a readily available candidate (unemployed) that might rank below your hiring profile versus a more qualified candidate that "had to finish the quarter and give two weeks notice."

In that tight labor market, were you better off to staff the position as soon as possible to help meet objectives or be more selective and wait? Keep in mind, that many a manager has been burned by waiting for the candidate that just "couldn't leave - my boss just made it too attractive for me." Most managers opted to staff immediately rather than risk missing objectives.

Back to 2011: If you look across the northern border of the US to low unemployment Canadian provinces like Manitoba (5.3%) and Alberta (5.7%), there is no such nuttiness.

I think they may be passing up on a lot of gems.

While all the input here is right-on, I would add two other points:

--Do you really want to work for a company that has such a Policy? Frankly, I don't.

--I see such a Policy as an Ethics issue.

That's my personal opinion (and such situations have arisen lately for several of my professional acquaintances).

Use of unemployment status as a criteria for screening out candidates in a land with 9% unemployment is a cop out. Suggesting that time out of employment is an indicator of any of energy, initiative, or qualification is equally so. Depending on the professional and the position, return to work times are in multiples of months.

As with any candidate, querying about non-working periods on a resume is wise. However, what distinguishes between a candidate who is fully employed but wants to leave for a new opportunity and a candidate who has been actively seeking employment, volunteering, or caring for family members, is whether that person brings the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, cultural fit, energy, et al required for the position.

A screening criteria that relies on excluding anyone whose employment history does not end in "to Present" fails the HR department using it and the company. Sitting in an organization where I do, I would want to know why HR is omitting a segment of the candidate pool that may have what we need in favor of a criterion like speed to narrow the list. I already expect that, but with a fully loaded pool of qualified people from which to draw.

I'll make the comment unapologetically. Show me an HR department that uses unemployment status as a sole criterion, and I'll show you a department that doesn't know what the business objectives are, doesn't have a connection with the C-suite, or doesn't have strong executive support. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to compliment our HR director.

David, I could not agree more with your comments. Would CEOs be impressed by such shortcuts that are used to screen out applicants? The CEOs of organizations that suffer from annual turnover rates above 10% should find out why and then ask, "why would we screen out any applicants given our failure rate in retaining employees?"

Guy, "I think they may be passing up on a lot of gems" is so true but they do that anyway unless they also hire for talent. If we don't measure talent, we don't hire for talent.

Hey David M.,
So well put...and I appreciate the humor! Thanks for sharing..

There are two elements to this question.. one being, why is the person still unemployed which sparks questions about the potential risks of hiring the candidate because of too many unknown factors. This is usually the case when the hiring process is "subjective" and doesn't employ a structured and objective approach to the recruiting process. With todays assessment "technology" and excellent resources for hiring, most subjective recruiters miss the mark and potentially make the wrong hire because they relied on old habits and approaches that no longer work in today's world. These old habits include "playing it safe" hiring the known versus unknown. Sadly, the recruiter is the one who loses because they relied on the wrong information to make their decision.

Employers who have a formal structured hiring process utilizing the right instruments actually have a better outcome that could include the hiring of someone who is unemployed and if there are two short listed candidates, an assessment report and proper reference checking would reveal they've actually got an amazing opportunity to hire the person who is unemployed vs the candidate who is currently employed and really not the best candidate for the position...

When I have heard this from employers they typically cite the preference based on a perceived energy level. They want someone who is continuously engaged in work. Short term assignments are fine as long as the person is demonstrating that they get up in the morning, get out, and get it done. It is a very tough perception to work against particularly with a large candidate pool.

Due to the de-regulations in America, employers can do whatever they want; and they can make the laws without the politicians questioning them. They don't care if there are people who are suffering from unemployment. Employers are cheap, ignorant, cruel, and greedy. As long as there are people agreeing with employers' sick practices, nothing will ever change for the better. It can only get worse not only in America but globally as well.

Just a personal opinion. It depends on how long has this the applicant been unemployed. The employer may concern that if the unemployed applicant is able to do the job right after the staring day after a long time unemployment.....I also know some good career advice and office advice articles....
http://www.edustarzone.com/CareerAdvice.html