Obama: Discrimination Against Jobless 'Makes Absolutely No Sense'

President Obama said during a Tuesday radio show that hiring discrimination against the jobless "makes absolutely no sense" and that he supports legislation to ban the practice.

Sybil Wilkes, a co-host of the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," asked the president about long-term unemployment and businesses that tell applicants, "If you're unemployed, we don't want to hear from you."

Obama noted that the long-term unemployed have a tougher time landing jobs and said a stronger overall economy would make employers less choosy. "But we have seen instances in which employers are explicitly saying we don't want to take a look at folks who've been unemployed," the president said.

"Well, that makes absolutely no sense, and I know there's legislation that I'm supportive of that says you cannot discriminate against folks because they've been unemployed, particularly when you've seen so many folks who, through no fault of their own, ended up being laid off because of the difficulty of this recession."

Since 2010, job postings that specify applicants "must be currently employed" have been easy to spot on sites like Monster.com and Craigslist.org. Labor advocates have worried the discrimination could shut workers out of the labor force and worsen the economy.

The postings aren't illegal because employment isn't a protected class like race or sex, but Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against people who don't have jobs. State lawmakers in New Jersey have already made it illegal to post ads with the anti-jobless language in that state.

HuffPost contacted more than 30 businesses that said "unemployed need not apply" in their ads. Most businesses that make hiring decisions disavowed the ads, but staffing firms that recruit workers claimed their clients only want the currently employed.

Worker advocates haven't had much luck with their petition to get Monster.com to quit allowing businesses to post ads that discourage the unemployed from sending their resumes.

Comments

[Rasebiho]

12:41 AM on 09/01/2011

There is seldom one clearly best applicant for a job opening. There are usually a few that look good, so it becomes an exercise in finding reasons to eliminate candidates until you are down to one.

Former employers almost never tell you why a former employee was let go. Maybe they hated to let the former employee go and maybe they were delighted to get rid of them.

So you've narrowed it down to two candidates. One is still employed and one has been out of work for a year. It's your job to pick a good candidate and choosing wrong may ultimately determine whether you keep your job.

What's the best choice?

[serena1313]

07:05 PM on 09/01/2011

You seem to be assuming that unemployed applicants were fired from their jobs as a result their own fault rather than let go due to the economy cratering at no fault of their own.

The best choice? Hire the applicant who is the best suited for the job irrespective of their current job status.

[DavidBlackburn]

04:16 AM on 09/03/2011

I don't know. If I had one candidate that was employed, but only out of school for six months and another who held the same job for 30 years and was out of work, I might consider the more mature and elder. This article cites ads that state an unemployed person need not apply. How could you eliminate a qualifed candidate from applying simply based on their job status.

Secondly, you can confirm employment dates and then follow-up by asking whether someone is eligible for rehire. If the answer is not yes, they can be eliminated from your search.

[Rasebiho]

09:01 PM on 09/03/2011

You have some good points and I'm sure that only a handful of employers are seriously excluding the unemployed. But I stand by my point that many employment decisions come down to eliminating equally valid candidates until there is only one left. And in that case being unemployed will be a detriment.

[oilfield]

07:50 PM on 08/31/2011

with the practice of not hiring the unemployed taking place in higher paying professional jobs why is this a surprise, especially in states with low unemployment benefits? in la, unemployment pays less than 20k a year, so why would you hire a professional for 80k a year that couldnt manage to get a job while looking for another making a little over minimum wage?

[philips0811]

07:03 PM on 08/31/2011

Mr. "never had a non-government job""never owned a business" is now going to tell all and sundry who to hire. Of course, judging by the number of tax cheats HE hired, his standards aren't all that high.

[oilfield]

07:51 PM on 08/31/2011

you almost have to be unemployed to work for the feds....it can take a month to get on with them.

[serena1313]

07:07 PM on 09/01/2011

Did you forget that President Obama was an Illinois state Senator and a US Senator.

[loki]

05:38 PM on 08/31/2011

it does if your main objective is to drive down wages and create an atmosphere where people will be willing to work for next to nothing.

[dimplesmile7]

02:43 PM on 08/31/2011

Either give people jobs or give the additional unemployment benefits. Stop trying to have it both ways.

[Glenda Sitnek]

02:23 PM on 08/31/2011

This may not be an illegal practice, but it immoral along with viewing an applican'ts credit or medical records. Because these practices are allowed, many are not judged on their merit or experience rather by whether they've had a bankruptcy (thus indicating they aren't credit-worthy I guess) or whether the insurance costs will be higher with an at-risk employee. Now that we're reading the companies are dropping their benefits package, shouldn't we be concerned with their hiring practices as well?

[kathy001]

01:08 PM on 08/31/2011

In a good economy, looking for employed applicants means that the best employees at some companies can be recruited by the competition. In a bad economy, many of the best employees have been laid off simply because their jobs were eliminated due to lack of business. And still, employers think that they'll be stealing the best employees from their competitors by this practice. It shows a serious lack of insight and common sense. Currently employed people who are thinking about making a change should be aware that companies who do this are probably not going to be the best companies to work for.

[Body politic]

12:42 PM on 08/31/2011

"Most businesses that make hiring decisions disavowed the ads, but staffing firms that recruit workers claimed their clients only want the currently employed."

Company: "Ad, what ad, no one posted an ad with such language, we hire unemployed folks all the time."

Staffing Agency: "We were given specific instructions to only accept applications from those currently employed.....and female, and blonde, and childless, and.......

[Bandit29]

12:13 PM on 08/31/2011

I cannot believe he comes out with this stuff. He hires Jeffrey Imelt as his jobs czar; a man who has sent thousands of jobs overseas and sat with Obama and laughed when Obama said that maybe the jobs he was supposed to have created with the stimulus weren't so "shovel-ready. Why doesn't he insist that companies who send jobs overseas be taxed at a higher rate? Maybe that would cause them to keep the jobs in this country. I lost my job that I had held for more than ten years almost a year ago. I am over age 50. It's not just unemployed need not apply, it's also if you are over a certain age you need not apply. And I live in Texas where it is supposed to be better to find jobs. I see more and more out-of-state tags every day. I realize no one person is responsible for the poor economy but Obama has done nothing, in my opinion, to improve it.

[Skeetshooter]

10:50 AM on 08/31/2011

Bigotry is the ignorant fear of others, either for the way they're different, the way we wish they were different, or how we fear to be the same. No one wants to be unemployed, so turning them into pariahs serves the most superstitious dark recesses of our psyches. It's the worst side of human nature, but the seed exists in us all.

[NativeSonII]

02:20 PM on 08/31/2011

Skeetshooter, try writing about something you know. Judgement calls are not bigotry.

[Skeetshooter]

09:18 PM on 08/31/2011

Spoken like a true bigot. Superficial judgments seem to be your specialty. You don't know me well enough to use my name, let alone sit in judgment of me, you cretin.

[proudtohaveserved]

09:35 AM on 08/31/2011

MR PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE BEEN IN POWER FOR 3 YEARS(I VOTED FOR YOU) AND THIS IS ALL YOU CAN COME UP? INSTEAD OF BAILING OUT YOUR BUDDIES IN WALL STREET YOU SHOULD HAVE HELPED "THE MAIN STREET PEOPLE"

[crackerazzcracker]

05:43 PM on 08/31/2011

I think your Caps Lock button is depressed...

[nlkennedy]

06:14 AM on 09/01/2011

But that would have made him a commie-marxist-socialist-nazi.

You know thats where the right and the media would have taken him. He had no choice politically. There is nothing anybody can do in a corporate-oligarch ruled serfdom, like the USA.

We are a religious corporatocracy. It is incredibly dangerous and incredibly futile to invest in the everyday people when you are the first black president with the middle name Hussein.

[NoBlueDogs]

08:44 AM on 08/31/2011

Credit checks do not prove whether an employee is going to be a good worker. No statistics support this. Most of the CEOs who ruined the big banks had great credit. Considerin­g the number of Americans with bad credit - including 16 million unemployed and 6 million long term unemployed - you're actually cutting your own business's throat by ruining your potential customer base. But you know what, I propose everyone take action. Every company that does credit checks for employment should be boycotted. Put them out of business and send them all a message.

[crackerazzcracker]

05:46 PM on 08/31/2011

Wow, the all powerful boycott, a lot of times companies don't sell products. They may provide a service to a very specific niche in the financial sector. How you going to boycott them. Plus, there pretty much aren't many blue dogs left, they left with all the outsourcing jobs. When you have limited resources most companies won't be scared of a boycott.

[irishlion7]

08:43 AM on 08/31/2011

Ir some one else didn't want you why should we. regardless of the reason you are out of work,
compsny closed, boss had to find a position for his dumb brother in lawmake half his work force. Or he found out he could make half his work force work twice as hard for the same amount of money. Or they were not selling So to build his salery it was easier .to let half his employers go.
Hey its the economy stupid. Or more directly it's the Repus-Tea Party.

[gwinegarden]

08:43 AM on 08/31/2011

Employers seem to have this idea that, if you are unemployed, there must be something wrong with you.

[gerald4]

08:42 AM on 08/31/2011

UNEMPLOYED NEED NOT APPLY

Most employers believe that other employers also lay off their workers that are complainers, are less productive, take more sick days off, have bad work habits, poison the workplace, and other similar traits when and if it comes time to reduce their workforce!

Most employers will then keep the employees with less or fewer of these bad work traits.

Maybe it is not fair, but that is just the way people think.

[IrieMoon]

09:04 AM on 08/31/2011

"Maybe it is not fair, but that is just the way people think."

Which is why they need to change how they think. Especially in times like these where even the most loyal, dedicated and productive person can lose their job through no fault of their own.

[ROR]

11:44 AM on 08/31/2011

Well said....which is usually the case these days. I worked for a well known Health care facility for years with devoted employees...what they got was laid off and their jobs shipped overseas. Fanned!!!!

[crackerazzcracker]

05:50 PM on 08/31/2011

Then why hasn't that dedicated and productive person taken a $9/hr job and been promoted. Oh wait, that's the same amount UE benefits cover. Why work 40 hours a week to clear $275 when the government(your fellow citizens) will cover that amount

[Glenda Sitnek]

02:27 PM on 08/31/2011

Really you should have said, that's how people think NOW. We have become so divisive and angry and ungrateful that we are tossing civility out the window along with privacy.