Quote from Sodajerk:
The question is, what does an employer stand to gain by limiting its options for new hires to people who are currently employed?
Quote from hippie:
The personel office won't have to screen thru the thousands of applications for the desperate applying for any freaking job there is.
Quote from Sodajerk:
Okay, but why use a "currently employed" rule, rather than something else, to accomplish this? A lot of people who are very qualified happen to be unemployed.
Sorry if I seem a bit slow on the uptake here.
Quote from hippie:
The personel office won't have to screen thru the thousands of applications for the desperate applying for any freaking job there is.
When I was unployed, I had idiot friends pushing to apply for any job - even if there is not a match at all!
These morons just think that if a person is w/o a job, the person should apply for work 24/7. I can just imagine a jobless person with a spouse who expects a steady income from him/her.
It is hard enough to be with a job and without money. It is much harder when there are idiots who simply expect you to be able to keep doing the stuff you used to do....
Quote from Bolts:
That is really dumb the more I think about it. Those "full time job hunters" applying for things they aren't qualified for are part of the problem too. They're making it more expensive for companies to hire people because they need HR to spend hours going through stacks of worthless resumes and talk to unqualified people on the phone, etc etc. Yet that does seem to be the conventional wisdom, the idea that job hunting is a full-time job. That really needs to change.
Quote from Retief:
Stupid ads. The companies are asking for class-action lawsuits. They should have legal review the ads or employ smarter lawyers.