Monster: The Unemployed Need Not Apply
Read Time:6 Minute, 15 Second
Does Monster.com Discriminate
Against the Unemployed?
Monster.com stands accused of posting job opportunities against the unemployed with gaps in their employment history.
Are Monster.com’s job posting policies are monstrous for the unemployed? Employer job advertisements on Monster imply the unemployed need not apply. As one of the nation’s largest online job search tools, the corporation stands accused of slanting job opportunities to enhance those who have no “gaps” in their employment history.
In allowing companies to advertise jobs for those preferably employed or recently employed, many organizations are calling Monster’s advertising practices implicitly discriminatory. In effect, the covert message is, “If you’re unemployed or have a long gap in your job history, don’t bother applying. We don’t want you. We won’t interview you.”
At the beginning of 2008 when the stock market crashed, corporations panicked. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, many of whom have now been unemployed for two to five years or longer. America is in the worst job crisis since the Great Depression, but employers don’t seem to care about the unemployed. There are too many people highly qualified for too few jobs.
New York Times researchers reviewed job advertisements for Monster, CareerBuilder, and Craigslist. They discovered hundreds of employers that only consider, or strongly prefer, people currently employed or “recently” laid off applicants. (The term “recently” is not clearly defined.) Unemployed workers are typically aware that employers mistrust résumés with employment gaps: interviewers frequently ask about employment lapses.
The unemployment rate has been 9% for the past three years: in California, the figure is closer to 16%. These statistics include neither the underemployed nor the unemployed who no longer receive benefits. The average duration of unemployment today is nine months. This figure is an historical record high. The term “recently employed” disqualifies millions of people from reaching even the interview stage. Legal experts note discrimination do not relate to the jobless: the unemployed are not a protected group.
Change.org posted that, Many employers are discriminating against the jobless by prohibiting us from even applying for open positions. And they’re using sites like Monster.com to do it. According to Huffington Post Business, Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants.
One employer stated off the record, It’s our preference that [applicants] currently be employed. We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed—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.
When Sony Ericsson announced 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Georgia, area, they added a disclaimer NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL. The notice was later retracted.
Many companies do not intentionally screen out the unemployed, but may disqualify applicants for bad credit histories. They fail to realize that potential employees fall behind on paying their bills because they don’t have jobs. Further, rising expenses cause more and more people to live paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to save money in case of emergencies. Often, people incur large debt due to medical expenses for which they have no insurance.
In response to allegations of unemployment discrimination, Monster published an article entitled Employment Discrimination And The Hiring Process: Legal Gray Area? We Think Not. The post announced: Such employment discrimination, if it occurs, is likely a product of popular sentiment that those with a job are more qualified than those without, and an attempt to manage the volume of unemployed individuals applying for a given position… discrimination based on employment status falls into a legal gray area… There’s a very practical reason to oppose this practice—it’s not good business. Success in today’s market requires hiring the best talent. Period.
Employers commonly consider the best talent currently or recently employed. Of course, there are advertising revenues to be considered.
The Huffington Post reported that in July 2011, True Majority/USAction began circulating an online petition imploring employment websites 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.
In response to this discriminatory practice, True Majority/USAction initiated a petition. The organization also put the petition on DailyKos.com and launched a Face Book campaign. Over 26,000 people signed the petition thus far.
Monster countered with a cease and desist letter, claiming the organization is disseminating false, misleading and defamatory [allegations]… Monster.com does not engage in any discrimination in hiring [but] is the media for third-party employers that post their jobs directly onto the monster.com website without input or editorial contribution from Monster.
A spokesperson for True Majority/USAction states the organization refuses to comply with Monster’s request:
Saying they don’t discriminate against the unemployed in hiring is kind of a technicality without a moral distinction. 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.
[True Majority/USAction] will not ‘cease and desist’ telling the world about hiring discrimination against the unemployed, about companies that engage in this practice, and about online job posting firms that enable it. And that includes Monster.com, who should simply refuse ads from employers who openly discriminate against the unemployed.
In February 2011, the EEOC met publicly with advocates for the unemployed, who testified that employers and staffing agencies refuse to consider unemployed applicants for vacant positions at an increasing rate. Both the EEOC and advocates note that such discriminatory practices have a disparate impact on minority, older, and disabled workers, which groups face higher-than-average unemployment rates.
Congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would make discrimination against the unemployed illegal. In April, 2011, New Jersey outlawed discriminatory language against the unemployed published in job postings. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) introduced S.1471, the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011. The bill seeks to ban employers and employment agencies from either excluding or screening out the unemployed.
The federal government provided tax incentives in 2010 for companies to hire unemployed workers with limited success. The program was so poorly publicized, most employers did not know about the program.
Even if Congress passed a measure forbidding companies from making current employment a requirement for job applicants, companies could still decide not to hire people out of work. Discrimination would be difficult to prove.
If you disagree with companies posting job advertisements for employed or recently employed applications, Mad Mike’s America includes the following petition links you can sign.
- True Majority/USAction
- CREDO
- Change.org
- You can also open an account at Open Congress.org. Simply search for the bill and you can register your support or dissent to your senators and congressional representatives.
Should employers be allowed to discard a résumé because the applicant is not currently working? How can the government enforce laws that discriminate against the unemployed?
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Employer and managerial control within an organization rests at many levels and has important implications for staff and productivity alike, with control forming the fundamental link between desired outcomes and actual processes. Employers must balance interests such as decreasing wage constraints with a maximization of labour productivity in order to achieve a profitable and productive employment relationship..”
I have a message for all you managers who refuse to hire the unemployed. The next time you see someone homeless on the streets begging for money, you have absolutely no right telling that person to get a job. Your company might have been one of them whom that person applied for. Also, you have absolutely no moral rights to condemn someone who freeloads off society for welfare and food stamps. You assist with the cause of people being on welfare or food stamps or worse homelessnes. If you have problems with government handouts, then you would not discriminate against any candidate for your company.A person who is unemployed who would rather work for a living than freeloading off others should be your type of person. A newly hired unemployed applicant ideally means one less government handout recipient or walking around your hometown streets looking dirty with torn and dirty clothes with a cardboard sign.
I think it is time to start class action law suits against all job boards, employment agencies, and companies that are engaging in and or allowing this disgusting hiring practice. Enough is enough.
What’s the old saying. “Its easier to find a job when you already have a job.” It is definitely a truism, though not necessarily the wisest one.
Well, once the Bush job-creating tax breaks really kick in, we won’t have to worry about more qualified applicants than positons to fill, right? Guess it’s more of a twenty-year plan, though. (damn, no eye-rolling emoticon.:-P
Thanks for stopping by and the kind words, training wheels. We hope you stop by more often. You’re right, no company will expend energy to find qualified candidates. In this market, the employed are the first people who companies recruit. I guess they figure if someone’s working, they’re a better fit for the position. Of course, with this scenario, the pool of those people who do get hired shrinks.
Holte, Monster expressed the same sentiment in its press release; however, they still allow job ads that specify “employed or recently employed.” It clearly comes down to the bottom line: job postings generate revenue. That’s how Monster makes money.
John, of course companies will often keep their best employees, but I’ve also seen a lot of good employees let go while a lot of slackers keep their jobs. Sometimes, yes, it’s purely a business decision. Some companies go with the “first hired last fired” mentality. Other companies let people go due to one form of politics or another.
I would think companies would be more likely to hire people that are unemployed, maybe on a probationary period. Those who do get a job after several months or years of scraping by might make great employees, grateful for the opportunity to have a job.
The problem is that once a person is let go from a job, and the longer s/he is job hunting and out of work, the less likely s/he is to get hired. It doesn’t matter how much education or skills an unemployed person has: they more often than not are overlooked.
For those who have high-end office skills, temp agencies and executive search placement agencies are the best avenue to get a full-time job. If the company likes an employee, then they’ll hire her/him.
Often, temporary and contract workers are more desirable because they don’t get paid benefits: these positions commonly go to those employed or currently contracted. These workers may stay at a job for a 6 months or more, then go on to seek their next position once the contract is over. Even so, contractors can go months without finding a job, and the applicant pool gets larger.
Answers? I have none.
When companies start to lay off, they often keep the best people the longest. It is just a business decision in a market where there are more people looking for work than there are jobs.
‘Unemployed need not apply’ is a pretty callous attitude for companies to have and foolish too. They could be passing over a smart thinking person who is a perfect fit for their company. Foolish and short-sighted.
I gotta tell ya this is a great little place. My wife told me about it and you guys have a little bit for everyone. This job story has confirmed one of my long standing positions which is none of the job monsters really want to expend energy finding you a job. That’s too much work.