TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Unemployment as a cause of unemployability

Go To

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#51: Oct 22nd 2011 at 1:37:52 AM

Actually we can pile the blame on employers for this one they are the ones practising it. Pretty straight forward who is responsible for this practice. Sure as hell is not the guy who got fired because of cut backs from a bad quarter.

Folks this is simple. You remove the bullshit excuses for them to ignore you and kick you to the curb. It gives you a better shot at even reaching considered stage instead of a quick trip the waste bin for your application.

Ok lack of experience or skill how do you get that while your unemployed? Sure as hell can't afford schools for that if you have no job.

edited 22nd Oct '11 1:41:10 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#52: Oct 22nd 2011 at 6:58:38 AM

@Vericrat

Sorry, but Tuefel's right. Blaming this on the unemployed in this sort of economy is just blaming the victim and making excuses for the abuser.

Corporations started firing because demand went way, way down due to the housing and debt crisis and similar actions by the banks and companies, not due to the actions of the people just doing their jobs. You can't tell me with a straight face that millions and millions of workers suddenly all magically sucked at once, especially when the true causes of the issue are out there as facts.

And if a boss is in a bad mood... well, one, not only is it bullshit to begin with to blame the employees for any consequences of that, as opposed to the fact that it's not OK for a boss to fire anyone to begin with based on him being in a "bad mood", and you know, blaming the boss for his/her bad actions... two, the ones who get fired in that situation are the ones the boss doesn't like. And the shitty workers can suck up to the boss very easily; I've seen my fair share of workers who were tight with the boss but couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map instead of being actual good workers.

And lately in layoffs senority and proficiency hasn't protected people; sometimes they'll actually specifically lay off older workers in favor of younger workers regardless of relative skill sets.

The only reason an employee deserves to lose their job is if they were actually doing something wrong. And unless you're going to tell me with a straight face that millions of people suddenly did their jobs wrong out of the blue at the same time, the fact is that companies cut jobs due to market problems the workers themselves didn't cause, and millions of good workers became unemployed through no fault of their own.

You come off as someone looking at a battered wife and going, "Well, I'm sorry your husband beat the shit out of you, but I'm sure he had a good reason and you deserved it, so you don't rate any help."

edited 22nd Oct '11 7:00:02 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#53: Oct 22nd 2011 at 6:59:58 AM

sometimes they'll actually specifically lay off older workers in favor of younger workers regardless of relative skill sets.

And yet in the current economy the 16-30 demographic has the highest rate of unemployment and layoffs.

Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#54: Oct 22nd 2011 at 7:01:09 AM

[up] Mainly because most of the older workers already laid off have given up and just retired earlier than they wanted to make do with what money they already have.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#55: Oct 22nd 2011 at 7:06:51 AM

And yet if they are being laid off in favor of hiring younger workers, why is the younger demographic being laid off the hardest?

Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#56: Oct 22nd 2011 at 7:22:30 AM

[up] Um. Because they already got laid off, many of them gave up looking, and thus they no longer factor into current demographics.

Plus, sigh. MY POINT was that "being a good employee" doesn't mean shit in this economy, because all the things that traditionally save you haven't meant shit to employers. It was one example of dozens of things. I am not continuing this tangent, so anything else you say on it will be ignored. Address my actual point and the entire rest of my post you ignored, if you desire a response.

edited 22nd Oct '11 7:24:04 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#57: Oct 22nd 2011 at 7:45:14 AM

was that "being a good employee" doesn't mean shit in this economy

It doesn't mean shit in the best of times. Being a "good employee" does not make you indispensable, being a great one does.

Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#58: Oct 22nd 2011 at 9:43:37 AM

@Jeysie: It seems like you're ignoring my major point:

Unemployment is statistically a bad thing. You have not addressed this point. (Few if any reasons for being unemployed is a positive thing. Plenty of reasons for being unemployed that don't matter at all - including yours probably. Several that are a negative thing. Average them together and it is statistically negative.) The only time you even came close was "The only reason an employee deserves to lose their job is if they were actually doing something wrong." Well that depends on what you mean by doing something wrong:

If I hire one person and they perform adequately, don't show up late, whatever, it seems like you're saying I shouldn't have a reason to fire them. If someone else comes along and looks for a job, and they are better in every way than that employee, I might fire that employee for the better one. That would be the best business practice. What the first employee did "wrong" was be merely "adequate" when there was a large enough supply of "excellent" that I could find someone who was better to replace him.

In the workplace not doing anything "wrong" isn't enough to deserve your job. If you want to make yourself indispensable in the workplace you have to make sure that your employer is getting the best bang for the buck he's paying you.

"You can't tell me with a straight face that millions and millions of workers suddenly all magically sucked at once, especially when the true causes of the issue are out there as facts." -I don't know how many times I have to say there could be a million neutral reasons for being fired or laid off. As long as the bad ones outweigh the good ones unemployment is statistically a bad thing. Stop ignoring me on this. I am not blaming the majority of the unemployed. I'm getting tired of hearing that I am.

The way to handle this is to have more jobs around so that there aren't 20 applications for every position. When that's the case, employers are going to look for any reason to cut, and since unemployment is statistically bad, that's gonna be a reason. And it sucks for the unemployed, especially the ones that had a neutral reason. But taking away that reason for employers is going to start an endless string of lawsuits. For example: Two people apply to wait tables at a restaurant. The first one is unemployed and never waited tables before. The second is employed and never waited tables before. Both have a high school diploma and comparable GPA's (which really shouldn't matter anyway). The second simply has a more favorable interview and is hired. The first sues. The company now has to spend money defending the lawsuit.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that the employer might legitimately say, "Unemployment is statistically a bad thing."

Please don't ignore my points and then tell me I sympathize with wifebeaters. The comparison disgusts me. I have refrained from making personal attacks and suggest you do the same.

Sorry for the edit: I also want to point out every time the company has to defend a lawsuit that's less money it has to hire a new employee. So if you don't have any sympathy for the employer, at least consider that.

Further, if you don't have sympathy for the employer, keep in mind that most employers are at the same time people who are trying to make a living themselves (middle management often gets paid based on how well their teams do, so hiring the absolute most competitive applicant is a must for their living). And even if they're not feeling the pinch from multiple lawsuits (which would likely get them fired), you know who is? The people who own stock in the company. Many companies are publicly traded, somebody's retirement is based partly on how well company X is doing, and how well they are doing drops every time they have to defend a lawsuit. Even if they never won, if they can't just have the case dismissed outright, that's a fantastic amount of resources to take the case to trial or settle.

edited 22nd Oct '11 9:56:15 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#59: Oct 22nd 2011 at 10:02:19 AM

@Vericrat

You're getting so far away from my point that most of your post is just utterly irrelevant.

I am not saying that companies should never fire people, or there's never good reasons for someone being unemployed, or whatever.

What I am saying is that the mere fact that someone is unemployed doesn't mean shit. Now if you investigate the reasons for that unemployment and see there was a good reason, then you would pass over the person for that specific reason, but the simple existence of unemployment taken on its own is still never, ever a valid reason to pass someone over summarily. Especially in a market like this where the probability is extremely high that anyone unemployed didn't do anything wrong to lose their job.

Not only that, but also in a market like this, if you keep favoring only people switching jobs or the recently unemployed, then the few jobs being created aren't actually doing a thing to help fix the problem, because they're not actually reducing unemployment. The point of creating new jobs in this sort of market is to employ the people currently not employed, not merely shuffle around the existing workforce.

edited 22nd Oct '11 10:03:57 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#60: Oct 22nd 2011 at 10:25:38 AM

I'm a newcomer here so one time I will address your "what you said was irrelevant" remark. It was in poor taste because everything I said was in direct response to you. It also seems like you're trying to avoid the bulk of my argument because again, it is based on statistics.

My first paragraph addressed the statistics of unemployment. I will say this again: So long as being unemployed carries more legitimately negative connotations (having a smaller skill-set, being a bad worker, being bad at networking, demands too high a pay, etc.) than positive ones (having time to go to college, ?) when someone says they are unemployed that is in and of itself statistically a bad thing. If the employer has 20 applications and only enough time to thoroughly check 3 they are going to knock out as many apps as they can by cutting statistically bad things. That paragraph existed to point out that employers had a legitimate reason to consider "unemployment" a negative on an application. Dispute the point, but I don't think you can call it irrelevant.

Next I responded to your, "The only reason an employee deserves to lose their job is if they were actually doing something wrong." Again, you may dispute my reasoning. But you brought it up and my paragraph regarding worker indispensability was in direct response to yours. Again, can't see how I'm "getting so far away from [your] point that" this part of my post is just, "utterly irrelevant."

My next paragraph was again a direct response to you, where you said, "You can't tell me with a straight face that millions and millions of workers suddenly all magically sucked at once, especially when the true causes of the issue are out there as facts." Utterly irrelevant by way of getting away from your point, right?

My next paragraph combined what I think is a better solution than forcing liability on employers for rejecting applications based on unemployment + a demonstration of how such liability would be bad. It seems that you think that disputing the major point that employers should be forced to hire regardless of unemployment status is irrelevant. Again, disagree if you want to, but it's hard to see how something addressing the negatives of the proposed solution is irrelevant.

My most irrelevant paragraph came next where I asked you to stop engaging in ad hominem attacks. Maybe I shouldn't have. My mistake. However, it was a ridiculously small part of my post.

My edit addressed how forcing liability on the employer for engaging in hiring practices unfavorable to the unemployed was bad for both employers and unemployed. Again, this does not seem irrelevant.

If you don't have anything to say regarding my arguments, don't say anything. Or say you have nothing to say. Or say, "I disagree." Those things may not make your argument look good if you don't have a valid dispute. So maybe include some reasons. But it seems rude to completely disregard a thought out post as irrelevant for no reason.

Again, I'm new here, so maybe people will just read what you said and ignore my original post. That is the ONLY reason I felt the need to post this. I should not have to defend the relevance of a post that was completely on point. The burden is on you to prove that my post was irrelevant. I will not do it again.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Lessinath from In the wilderness. Since: Nov, 2010
#61: Oct 22nd 2011 at 11:09:51 AM

Tom, pull your head out of the sand, please.

Older individuals are indeed selectively fired by companies so that they do not have to pay retirement benefits.

Why aren't these fired people factoring into unemployed statistics? In this country, the only people counted for those statistics are people who are receiving unemployment benefits. This is why the number of "unemployed" has dropped while the number of employed people has dropped as well. See: job numbers that continue to drop because jobs are still disappearing faster than they're being created. If the older people who are fired do not apply for unemployment, they are not counted in these statistics.

"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — Madrugada
Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#62: Oct 22nd 2011 at 1:11:12 PM

@Vericrat

Because you keep saying, "Well, being unemployed can mean this, being unemployed can mean that."

And it's like, yes. It can mean that. And if the employer checks and it does mean that, then they're right in refusing that employee for that reason. Not rejecting the employee because they're unemployed, but rejecting the employee for the reason they're unemployed.

Meanwhile, tossing out an otherwise qualified application solely because the person is unemployed without even checking why they're unemployed is a 100% bad practice. Especially in this job market where the fact is that chances are high that someone is unemployed through no fault of their own. Especially in this job market where we need to be reducing the unemployment rate by actually employing people who aren't currently employed.

So the reason why I'm ignoring your post is because it is in fact irrelevant to my point, and there's no point in wasting time responding to something that doesn't change my point. In a normal market, sure, the argument you're making that bad reasons for unemployment are more probable than neutral or good ones would actually be a good point. But this isn't a normal job market, which is the bit you're utterly ignoring.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#63: Oct 22nd 2011 at 1:15:55 PM

Employers deliberately do this to make the prospect of unemployment scarier and be able to keep a tighter grip on the employees who remain under their heel.

Considering that they screw the people over all the time, forcing liabilities on them is perfectly appropriate.

edited 22nd Oct '11 1:16:54 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#64: Oct 22nd 2011 at 2:17:20 PM

^^ Expecting employers to take the time to do background checks on that many applicants is like expecting them to not break a law if the fine for breaking the law is less than the profit they'll make. (And that's not even a criticism of the employers so much as it's a consequence of capitalism.)

edited 22nd Oct '11 2:19:03 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#65: Oct 22nd 2011 at 3:38:53 PM

@feotakahari

No, expecting employers to do background checks on all qualified applicants is, like, normal. That's how it's kind of how it's supposed to work. If the person looks qualified on their resume or application, you check up their references, then call them in for interview. That way if you're rejecting them, you're rejecting them for reasons at least halfway related to the job. Not overlooking someone who actually might have been a perfectly excellent employee if you didn't throw out their resume based on something that might not even have had anything to do with their ability to work.

I mean, oh no, I'm expecting the employer to put in actual effort on something! How terrible! Let me get out the world's smallest violin.

edited 22nd Oct '11 3:39:55 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#66: Oct 22nd 2011 at 3:40:26 PM

Well, I mean, interviews tend to be multi-staged. And there's no sense in paying MONEY for background checks on every single applicant.

Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#67: Oct 22nd 2011 at 3:58:41 PM

@Tomu

There's a difference between reference checks and background checks. I'm talking the checks where you call previous employers and ask what kind of workers they were, and so on. Not the background checks you have to pay for where you see if the person has a criminal record and so on.

Plus the problem is that people who are long-term unemployed aren't even meeting the first stages of anything. They're just getting instantly circular-filed.

Basically, I'm sorry, but I think I feel justified in being irritated that I'm sometimes being passed over for jobs I actually would be perfectly qualified, capable, and trusted to do, for something that wasn't my fault. And the more times that happens, the longer I'm out of work, which just makes the problem even worse and more likely that I'll never be able to find work ever again.

Do you know what it's like feeling like maybe you might as well kill yourself because you'll never have work or money again?

edited 22nd Oct '11 4:01:56 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#68: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:18:29 PM

I tend to fail reference checks because I basically have no credible business references -_-;

I don't think you're in any worse of a situation than I am in that regard ya know.

edited 22nd Oct '11 4:19:07 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Jeysie Diva of Virtual Death from Western Massachusetts Since: Jun, 2010
Diva of Virtual Death
#69: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:24:31 PM

@Tomu

I wasn't railing at you, just... in general. After five years of little to no work, I'm getting really despondent, lonely, and starved for the chance to be able to support myself again. So I feel all RAGH to the people saying employers are remotely justified in passing over the very segment of people who most desperately need the work.

edited 22nd Oct '11 4:25:28 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#70: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:30:03 PM

I personally never understood why large businesses go with the hiring practices they do.

Actually, that's not true, I do understand it, sociologically, but it's not rational, and you'd think they'd be all o...

You know what, nevermind, Sociology 101 answers every question I was going to pose to the forum.

Basically (and take this with a grain of salt, since Max Weber is stupidly complex to understand when compared to the other founders of sociology), bureaucracy and capitalism are all supposed to be hyper-rational and efficient, because everyone, in a capitalist system, works towards their own goals, and bureaucracy allows specialization and efficient allocation of resources.

Yes, it does sound like Austrian economics and Objectivism. I'm not sure if it's related or not.

Anyhow, as we all know, theories don't survive first contact with reality, and in reality this whole rational-efficient thing breaks down as we have things like bureaucratic inertia ("the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy") and social/economic stratification (such as, fittingly enough, the discrimination against the unemployed for being unemployed, thus meaning they cannot become employed, etc.).

Basically, capitalism is supposed to be very rational and logical, and bureaucracy very efficient. In reality, they tend to be the exact opposite, due to the human element in the macro and micro.

...

Max Weber makes my head hurt sometimes.

edited 22nd Oct '11 4:30:41 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#71: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:31:47 PM

Employers are justified in it because they have an incentive to.

The purpose of government is to correct for such market failures.

Employers will never charitably hire people, and we shouldn't expect them to. As an economist, the solution is government intervention.

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#72: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:33:53 PM

Except my point is, they don't have an incentive to.

Someone being employed or unemployed isn't really any kind of marker for how well they'd do the job you'd like them to do. Hell, by the perverse logic that leads to this, employed people would be even less of a desirable hire, because that means they're ditching their old company and have no job loyalty...

Of course, that's not necessarily true, but that's the point: this whole thing is irrational.

Max Weber would slap dem bitches. [lol]

I am now known as Flyboy.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#73: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:36:49 PM

Eh, there are some indicators for why unemployment is seen as a bad sign by employers, generally having to do with "Oh, this person must be undependable" and so forth.

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#74: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:38:40 PM

Except a person who is employed and still seeking work would have the same problem. The logic just doesn't follow.

I am now known as Flyboy.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#75: Oct 22nd 2011 at 4:40:50 PM

No, a person who is employed and seeking work is seeking work to raise their social standing. An unemployed person is automatically a bum who got fired for being unqualified.

THAT BEING SAID, if you're seeking work while currently employed, firms may be worried about you being overqualified. But generally if you're already employed, you won't be searching for work for which you're overqualified for.

edited 22nd Oct '11 4:41:28 PM by TheyCallMeTomu


Total posts: 152
Top