Don't Have a Job? Don't Bother Applying.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    Yes, I know it is an employer's right to hire who they will, but this shit infuriates me:

    unemployed-need-not-apply.jpeg

    I want to reach through the compuer screen, grab the poster of this ad and shake him whilst hollering "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!"

    ::sigh::
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:09 AM GMT
    That's easy. Just indicate that you are currently a "consultant". icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    Inostrankan saidYes, I know it is an employer's right to hire who they will, but this shit infuriates me:

    unemployed-need-not-apply.jpeg

    I want to reach through the compuer screen, grab the poster of this ad and shake him whilst hollering "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!"

    ::sigh::


    Relax, Melinda. It's not any of your business (literally).

    I find it refreshing. That company is probably tired of wading through tons of sad-sack no-talent moochers.

    A company's purpose is not to provide employment for people. It is to make a profit.

    It's the real world, Melinda. Get over it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:15 AM GMT
    exactly would be the employer's rationale for insisting on hiring only currently employed people...?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:15 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said

    Relax, Melinda. It's not any of your business (literally).

    I find it refreshing. That company is probably tired of wading through tons of sad-sack no-talent moochers.

    A company's purpose is not to provide employment for people. It is to make a profit.

    It's the real world, Melinda. Get over it.
    And neither is it the purpose of the government. Make sure you tell that to the tea baggers and republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    Inostrankan saidYes, I know it is an employer's right to hire who they will, but this shit infuriates me:

    unemployed-need-not-apply.jpeg

    I want to reach through the compuer screen, grab the poster of this ad and shake him whilst hollering "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!"

    ::sigh::


    Relax, Melinda. It's not any of your business (literally).

    I find it refreshing. That company is probably tired of wading through tons of sad-sack no-talent moochers.

    A company's purpose is not to provide employment for people. It is to make a profit.

    It's the real world, Melinda. Get over it.


    Oh right, well let's just go ahead and ignore the 9%+ unemployment rate, mass layoffs, and people struggling to make their ends meet. Because that's the American way. /sarcasm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:17 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidexactly would be the employer's rationale for insisting on hiring only currently employed people...?


    Why don't you call them and ask?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    Scottius has the right response to this ridiculous and weepy complaint:

    02c925cc06a64bda8ceca35ce2f7cbef.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:19 AM GMT
    Can't really be arsed to.

    But there might be some advantage - however small - in taking a qualified individual off of the unemployment rolls.

    Or so the logic of reducing taxes and providing corporate welfare goes. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    _GOD_ said
    JackNWNJ said
    Inostrankan saidYes, I know it is an employer's right to hire who they will, but this shit infuriates me:

    unemployed-need-not-apply.jpeg

    I want to reach through the compuer screen, grab the poster of this ad and shake him whilst hollering "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!"

    ::sigh::


    Relax, Melinda. It's not any of your business (literally).

    I find it refreshing. That company is probably tired of wading through tons of sad-sack no-talent moochers.

    A company's purpose is not to provide employment for people. It is to make a profit.

    It's the real world, Melinda. Get over it.


    I'm glad the humans finally realize this. Many of them seem to think that not taxing companies will create jobs. But a companies purpose is not to create jobs.


    That's putting the cart before the horse. No one, not the government nor industry can willfully "create jobs."

    Jobs are an incidental by-product of expanding wealth.

    Once government gets the hell out of the way and removes obstacles to wealth generation, all works well.
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Sep 12, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    If you have a job already... why would you be looking for this kind of job?
    What if you had some corporate genius who is unemployed because had retired early at 40 (and is applying now because he's bored off his ass in retirement) versus a college kid who was flipping burgers and employed?

    It's probably a douchebag company anyway. Saves most people the trouble of applying I suppose.

    "No unemployed" is the new "No asianz plz lol"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    I don't understand what the purpose of this pre-req is...
    what would a business gain from having only employed individuals apply?
    I understand it would weed out some people not qualified for the job but there are plenty of well-educated, experienced people looking for work too...
    true it's a company's purpose to make a profit but this one certainly is closing itself off to opportunity... if they're like this in all areas of business practice I doubt they're wildly successful and definitely not the kind of company you would be able to build a career with - can't imagine anyone who would want to work for them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    dancedancekj saidIf you have a job already... why would you be looking for this kind of job?
    What if you had some corporate genius who is unemployed because had retired early at 40 (and is applying now because he's bored off his ass in retirement) versus a college kid who was flipping burgers and employed?

    It's probably a douchebag company anyway. Saves most people the trouble of applying I suppose.

    "No unemployed" is the new "No asianz plz lol"
    That's the 'corporate way'!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    If this company were truly driven by profit, it'd move its entire operation to Mumbai and fire off the useless American eaters while paying pennies on the dollar for hard-working English-speaking Indian talent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:40 AM GMT
    it was a Sony Ericsson job ad posted last year apparently... once it hit cnn and local newscasts across the country, Sony was threatened to lose $4 million in tax credits... not surprising.
    This kind of thing has probably always gone on behind the scenes but apparently this is the newest form of public discrimination in the US? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:45 AM GMT
    Companies do this because people with jobs are viewed as "winners". That and many people have been out of work for so long that places no longer want to train/work with people that will simply leave once the economy is better. It's not just corporate jobs that are doing this, there are low end retail jobs that are only looking to hire already employed people. It's really upsetting how unamerican corporations are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    I personally don't like it, but if the company finds this policy changes the percent of qualified applicants from 1% to 10%, I could see them doing this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    dancedancekj saidIf you have a job already... why would you be looking for this kind of job?
    What if you had some corporate genius who is unemployed because had retired early at 40 (and is applying now because he's bored off his ass in retirement) versus a college kid who was flipping burgers and employed?

    It's probably a douchebag company anyway. Saves most people the trouble of applying I suppose.

    "No unemployed" is the new "No asianz plz lol"


    An unemployed person with the proper skills would not likely be turned down by this company.

    But here's the rub (or a rub, anyway): A person with that kind of talent would not be unemployed. He would be doing something, whether with a company, or on his own.

    I see it as an effort by this company to weed out the unemployed burger-flippers.
  • ohioguy12

    Posts: 2024

    Sep 12, 2011 1:48 AM GMT
    The title for the job seems to be Head of Marketing Communications, therefore, they must want someone who is climbing up the corporate ladder, and I can't fault them for wanting that in this high profile job.

    Although there are some quality people who have been layed off for various reasons
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI personally don't like it, but if the company finds this policy changes the percent of qualified applicants from 1% to 10%, I could see them doing this.


    So why would you personally not like it? Why should a company go out of its way to attract unqualified applicants?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:51 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ saidScottius has the right response to this ridiculous and weepy complaint:

    02c925cc06a64bda8ceca35ce2f7cbef.jpg


    Lol. Pity the poor man! PITY!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:51 AM GMT
    k3l3k0 saidit was a Sony Ericsson job ad posted last year apparently... once it hit cnn and local newscasts across the country, Sony was threatened to lose $4 million in tax credits... not surprising.
    This kind of thing has probably always gone on behind the scenes but apparently this is the newest form of public discrimination in the US? icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. It reveals a deeper scam. Companies are taking resumes and applications merely in order to get tax credits.

    Blame the government for perpetrating this. I always suspected as much, from the beginning of the "stimulus." This is government control of the economy at its most blatant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:52 AM GMT
    If its advertised, that hiring manager is seeing thousands of resumes.

    At this point, people are not just applying to jobs they're interested in, they're applying for EVERYTHING. After all, it gives them something to put on their federal unemployment claim forms.

    Use LinkedIn. Do some research and see if you can find names of hiring managers. There is a subscription option for job seekers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:55 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    socalfitness saidI personally don't like it, but if the company finds this policy changes the percent of qualified applicants from 1% to 10%, I could see them doing this.


    So why would you personally not like it? Why should a company go out of its way to attract unqualified applicants?

    I guess I don't really care one way or the other. With the economy, there could be qualified people unemployed. Given mergers, downsizing, etc., some high level positions are often lost and qualified people don't readily find other positions. I think it would be in the company's best interest to have screening qualifications that don't preclude such people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2011 1:56 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    Inostrankan saidYes, I know it is an employer's right to hire who they will, but this shit infuriates me:

    unemployed-need-not-apply.jpeg

    I want to reach through the compuer screen, grab the poster of this ad and shake him whilst hollering "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!"

    ::sigh::


    Relax, Melinda. It's not any of your business (literally).

    I find it refreshing. That company is probably tired of wading through tons of sad-sack no-talent moochers.

    A company's purpose is not to provide employment for people. It is to make a profit.

    It's the real world, Melinda. Get over it.



    Why are you calling him by a random woman's name? Oh, that's right....because he's complaining about something. Tell ya what...I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to let you choose what female name we get to call you because you're the bitchiest little twat on here.