Monster.com Says It Won't Ban Third-Party Ads That Discourage Job Applications From The Unemployed

WASHINGTON -- The parent company for the employment website Monster.com, Monster Worldwide Inc., is taking action to get the progressive advocacy group USAction to stop its online campaign aimed at companies whose job postings discourage the unemployed from applying.

In July, USAction began circulating an online petition imploring employment websites such as Monster.com and Careerbuilder.com to reject ads from third-party employers that require applicants to be "currently employed." As employment websites, Monster and Careerbuilder don't actually post the ads, but do allow them to be up on the site.

USAction began collecting signatures online -- it now has about 26,000 -- and put a petition letter on the progressive website Dailykos.com. The group also launched an ad campaign on Facebook.

Then late last Friday, USAction received a "cease and desist" letter from Monster.com claiming the information in the campaign is false, misleading and defamatory. "Monster.com does not engage in any discrimination in hiring," the letter said. "Monster.com is the media for third-party employers that post their jobs directly onto the monster.com website without input or editorial contribution from Monster."

USAction spokesman David Elliot said USAction would not cease nor desist.

"Saying they don't discriminate against the unemployed in hiring is kind of a technicality without a moral distinction," he told The Huffington Post. "They may not, themselves, discriminate in terms of the people they hire at Monster.com, but they're still running these ads. So we're going to keep continuing, we're not going to cease and desist when it comes to telling the world about this unfair and outrageous practice, a practice that should in fact be illegal."

Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation that would make discrimination against the unemployed illegal, while in April, New Jersey made it illegal to use discriminatory language against the unemployed in job postings.

Monster.com issued a defense in a blog post last week stating that it opposes discrimination in any form, but ultimately leaves the responsibilities of the job listings to the employers themselves. In response to a query from HuffPost, the company referred a reporter to its blog posting.

"While we oppose discrimination against the unemployed on numerous grounds, we believe it is the responsibility of employers themselves, rather than Monster, to decide what they say in their job postings and how they want their company to be viewed. We believe that any companies intentionally excluding this segment of the population from consideration are missing out on great talent and putting their reputations at risk."

Careerbuilder.com did not respond to a request for for comment.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the name of the USAction spokesman as David Nelson. His name is in fact David Elliot.

Comments

[AuntInAZ]

04:42 AM on 08/27/2011

Here is the link to the NELP report:
http://unemployedworkers.org/page/-/UI/2011/unemployed.discrimination.7.12.2011.pdf?nocdn=1
Hiring Discrimination Against the Unemployed: Federal Bill Outlaws Excluding the Unemployed from Job Opportunities, as Discriminatory Ads Persist

Huffpost article written by Tyler Kingkade, Jordan Howard and Arthur Delaney:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/unemployment-discrimination-slideshow_n_917641.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008#s321678&title=Frankel_Staffing_Entry
Unemployment Discrimination: Who's Afraid To Hire The Jobless?

[Donadio]

02:15 PM on 08/26/2011

For those who are looking for proof:

The National Employment Law Project conducted a study:
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/2011/unemployed.discrimination.7.12.2011.pdf?nocdn=1

The appendix lists the guilty culprits

This CNN article also gives testimonials from recruiters:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

[Carl Heckman]

02:07 PM on 08/25/2011

For the most part, jobs that have the phrase "must be currently employed" in their advertisement say "must be currently employed *in a similar position*". This seem to be a short way of saying: "We need someone right away; there is no time for training, so you need to know how to do everything NOW." What's the best way to make sure that they have current knowledge? By insisting that they're employed in a similar problem.

So it appears that the petition writers have taken things out of context.

[MikeRubin2]

02:59 PM on 08/25/2011

The petition writers may have or they may not have taken things out of particular contexts, but there's a general perception issue here that they are addressing. And unless the ad actually says what you suggest it means, it's YOU who's doing the assuming.

There's a huge body of thought on the part of employers that anyone worth employing wouldn't have been laid off by someone else. However, we all know from our families' and friends' experiences that that's a genuinely incorrect stereotype. By making assumptions about what an ad means when it doesn't say that, precisely, you're playing right into that stereotype just like these employers.

Your availability point is also unpersuasive: there's no one as available as someone unemployed. There's no two-week notice, they''re there tomorrow if you want them to be.

If an applicant can't step into the particular job because the skill set isn't right, then don't hire that person, whether employed or unemployed. It's demeaning, however, and potentially racially discriminatory given the unemployment rates in some communities, to tell the unemployed who DO possess the skills and COULD hit the ground running that they aren't good enough to hire because someone else took them off of payroll for reasons that could well have nothing to do with job performance.

Unfortunately, though, that's exactly what these employers really are saying. If there's karma, their own best employees will be jobseeking on company time.

[Carl Heckman]

02:55 AM on 08/26/2011

Where should I start with this?

Another search suggests that my hypothesis is correct. Let's look at an article from August 8, 2010: "Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered' ", at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html . Hey, that's the Huffington website as well!

The HR representative for The People Place says: "With the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in." (This is a direct quote.)

Paraphrasing: The company is flooded with resumes. They want to weed out the people who have no chance in **** of getting the job. Instead of doing that manually, they put a condition in the ad that discourages people who aren't qualified. Result: fewer resumes to go through. It's called playing the odds.

You see a lot of this in academia, by the way. If you don't keep up with the current research in your area, you simply can't get a research job. I know; I've "been there and bought the T-shirt". (I've been teaching 100% of my time since the economy went bad in 2001, after getting a doctorate in 2000. That's Obama's fault, too, I guess.)

[kua]

03:45 PM on 08/26/2011

Carl, What's the problem in saying, "Must have experience in a similar position." ? There may be currently unemployed but experienced experts in a field that have been only unemployed for a few weeks or months. You want to exclude them?!

[Carl Heckman]

06:57 PM on 08/26/2011

I'm not in HR, so I don't know why a particular company would settle on any particular wording. Some companies *have* included the phrase "experience in a similar position" in their ads. But they're not the ones "causing all the trouble."

I just considered the two possibilities: (1) The company wants someone right away for the position, (2) The company is full of SOBs and want to jerk people around. I consider explanation (1) to be more likely than (2), even though many companies *are* full of SOBs.

[s grimm]

01:15 PM on 08/20/2011

I feel as if people are reacting and not thinking this through. Although I don't disagree with the original petitioner and think it is a poor judgment call on behalf of any employer making this statement, we do not need another law restricting our freedom of speech. Hear me out!
A law preventing someone from making such a request ultimately will not prevent an employer from receiving the resume and making their decision. IN ADDITION - if it becomes law restricting statements that unemployed candidates “need not apply”, it will ultimately also prevent companies from requesting the unemployed candidates “to apply” as that would be reverse discrimination. There are far greater job postings requesting the unemployed to apply than the reverse. Also, what will be next - companies restricted from requesting resumes only from people with a certain degree or years experience for their scientist or physician job requirements?! Come on….

[Verjean Lunenschloss]

07:23 PM on 08/18/2011

I call BS on Monster. Monster reserves the right to remove any job posting or content from any Monster Site, which in the reasonable exercise of Monster’s discretion, does not comply with the above Terms “OR IF ANY CONTENT IS POSTED THAT MONSTER BELIEVES IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF MONSTER.”

It appears to this poster, that since Monster continues to post such listings, that Monster believes that it IS IN THE BEST INTEREST of Monster to continue to “support” these companies by allowing them to advertise. Therefore, I believe that social media NOT ONLY HAS EVERY RIGHT, but has the “RESPONSIBILITY” to inform the public of this despicable, and downright disgusting, policy. In a time where we are seeing record unemployment, 13.9 million unemployed and 44.4% of those unemployed for over 27 weeks. I find this policy and your support of it to be unconscionable. How policies of this ilk can be condoned by a company that is supposed to be about employment, is perplexing. One must believe that the largest share of those seeking employment through Monster, are THE unemployed. How betrayed we feel. Damn skippy we signed the USAction petition. You can quote all the great things you do to support the unemployed, and it’s all empty if you choose to partner with companies that want nothing to do with the unemployed. Can you say hypocrisy? I can only hope that Congress acts, or that a lawsuit is forthcoming. Shame on you.

[Some0ldGuy]

07:44 PM on 08/18/2011

>> "I can only hope that Congress acts..."

Now you're really dreaming! If there's no money in it for Congress, they will do nothing. Congress is expert in every aspect of doing nothing, other than whine, slander any/all opponents, and steal from We The People. The whole lot of them, with few exceptions, should be locked up in prison forever.

[airmikee99]

04:06 PM on 08/18/2011

I've never found a job listing on Monster.com that wasn't spam or a link to malware anyway. This just solidifies my decision they're a shady company not worth visiting.

[Some0ldGuy]

12:08 PM on 08/18/2011

I wish somebody would put up the names of any company(s) that discriminates against the unemployed, *AND* verification of it.

I just spend a long time looking for any ads that state "no unemployed", or similar, and could not find any. Somebody could have made this whole thing up. Not saying that is what happened, but there is no clear evidence [yet]. In my opinion, the article author should have done some investigation, and posted the evidence.

If anybody out there knows of any company(s) that discriminate against unemployed people, please post it, with proof. I will gladly go out of my way to boycott any such company.

[Verjean Lunenschloss]

07:24 PM on 08/18/2011

The fact that Monster felt compelled to "defend" itself...is probably proof enough.

[Some0ldGuy]

07:40 PM on 08/18/2011

I'm not buying that. It is more likely that "somebody" there who is not being professional simply accepted that it must be happening because "somebody else" says it is happening. Why has no company been named?? I'm leaning toward this: perhaps the whole issue was fabricated by somebody who does not like Monster (a disgruntled employee, for example), -OR- maybe there was ONE job posted that said "unemployed people need not apply", and somebody got all upset over it. But I don't know for sure, because I can not find any evidence. I did take quite a bit of time earlier today, then 2 hours after work this evening, yet found no job post that stated no unemployed people would qualify.

*IF* the accusation turns out to be accurate, then I will be as against Monster as anybody.

[AuntInAZ]

04:18 AM on 08/27/2011

I've seen several of the ads myself. Many of the jobs may be through an agency and that agency may not always provide the name of the company they are recruiting for. I run into that one all the time. I just looked at a job ad a couple of minutes ago on Monster posted by Ajilion that did not give the company name and stated only employed applicants in a 'similar' manne would be considered. They danced around saying no unemployed need apply with different wording, but the meaning was clear.

Sony Ericsson got in trouble a few months back for running ads that stated applicants must be employed. There was also the NELP report on this issue, or the in depth article several HuffPo reporters collaborated on a little bit ago. Granted that wasn't specific to Monster.com, but it is evidence of what a growing problem/issue this is.

[peugh314]

02:12 PM on 08/17/2011

http://unemployedunwanted.blogspot.com/2011/08/lets-fight-back.html?showComment=1313604397824#c5476374942368886705

If you are as tired of being discriminated as I am, please list companies that you know are discriminating against the unemployed, and we can boycott them. It is time to take action and stop simply talking. We need to hit companies where they will feel it - in their pocketbooks. As horrible as being unemployed is, we can be a force to be reckoned with when our numbers are at 14 million and climbing.

[Dahveed1]

10:26 AM on 08/16/2011

Wouldn't it be far better to publish the names of the companies that are placing that requirement on their postings? Or is it so widespread that its almost every company doing this.

[peter777]

09:06 AM on 08/16/2011

Monster.com is just as wrong as sin about allowing discriminatory ads. What happened to their morals?

[i67darrin]

06:32 AM on 08/16/2011

Monster isn't really a good job hunting site anymore anyways. Not as user-friendly as dozens of other sites and rather antiquated. Do yourself a favor and use any number of other job sites.

[ESerafina42]

07:14 PM on 08/15/2011

"While we oppose discrimination against the unemployed on numerous grounds, we believe it is the responsibility of employers themselves, rather than Monster, to decide what they say in their job postings and how they want their company to be viewed. We believe that any companies intentionally excluding this segment of the population from consideration are missing out on great talent and putting their reputations at risk."
___

BS. Surely they have standards that people who post on their site must follow, like not allowing profanity or derogatory language. Sorry - Monster.com - allowing this on your site makes YOU look bad too, and surely it's your "responsibility" to "decide how [you] want [your] company to be viewed."

[Tunghoy]

04:24 PM on 08/15/2011

Imagine for a moment that rather than discriminating against unemployed people, the ads discriminated against people because of their race, age, gender or place of origin. Instead of ads saying "Unemployed need not apply" they said "Elbonians need not apply." Would Monster.com and other job sites still use the excuse that they're just the messenger?

And keep in mind this isn't just about Monster. The problem is ALL the sites that have job listings. But only Monster got their knickers in a twist. That means they feel the pressure, so USAction should keep it up.

[Dahveed1]

10:29 AM on 08/16/2011

Why are we not outraged at the companies that include this language in their postings? Monster is just the web site.

[Tunghoy]

12:10 PM on 08/16/2011

We should be outraged at both. But targeting the online search services makes sense because they are a junction point on a critical path.

[GENi360]

11:37 AM on 08/26/2011

Everyone is going after the wrong party...the real culprits are Congress and President Obama. Our entire employment system is BROKEN and the fix lies in the hands of Congress and President Obama. If Congress would only amend employment and labor laws so that companies' hands would be untied and they could be allowed to hire workers under an alternative employment platform, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Make no mistake about it, this problem is much bigger than Monster.com and claims of discirmination!

[gharlane]

03:57 PM on 08/15/2011

Ah, so Monster "opposes discrimination" but is "just a conduit", so they just put up any old ad the listing business wants. So they'd have no problems running ads saying "Job candidates must be white and Protestant." Got it.

[ESerafina42]

07:16 PM on 08/15/2011

Or male. Though of course their excuse there would be that those kinds of discrimination are against the law. Which is why (and I'm talking to YOU, Rand Paul), we NEED laws against discrimination.

[Hotness]

12:12 PM on 08/15/2011

dailykos...what a joke. Making up crap. They're going cease alright.

[Tunghoy]

04:26 PM on 08/15/2011

They're obviously not making stuff up when the offending ads are plain for everyone to see. It's you who is making things up.

[Hotness]

07:54 AM on 08/16/2011

Show an example from careerbuilder or monster or any job posting board that uses the statement no ue applications accepted.

[pmoschetta]

06:22 PM on 08/15/2011

maybe you need to get off your back, hotness and read some facts, not fantasies

[Hotness]

09:36 PM on 08/15/2011

Maybe can you show where an ad on monster says ue applications not accepted. Of course you won't find that...it doesn't exist. More delusions from a sympathizer.