Would this be the right way to brand Laid Off workers? Would that also mean that those laid off are not worthy of a consideration?
Are there any laws that can protect these workers in the event of such a bias?
It would be interesting to know if any of you too have specific policies for hiring laid off employees?
I also posted the same question on Linkedin and got some really interesting( and emotional) responses! Check out the Linkedin post here....
That is one (lets see how I can put this politely) dummy for a client. What planet has he been living on? We have had more hard-working, honest, sharp, smart Americans laid off through no fault of their own and they would give anything for a job. Tell your client to go ahead and pass on them, I'll hire them instead.
ReplyDeleteBen Bendetti
General Manager Huma Resources at Total Interior Systems of America
Thanks, Ben, for stating the obvious. As a part of the laid off population, I am truly disappointed in such narrow-minded thinking. Unfortunately, I have heard recruiters talk about their preference for passive candidates as opposed to those of us who are currently in active pursuit of our next position. In my last role as an HR Executive, I had responsibility for talent acquistion among many other functional areas of HR. We definitely did not care whether a candidate was passive, active, laid-off or, in general, not working for whatever reason. We were more concerned about cultural fit and what the candidate could do to help the organization achieve the business objectives.
ReplyDeleteBeverly McLean
Human Resources Executive
That's unfortunate - obviously that individual thinks that only the worst employees get laid off. Occasionally that may be true but when the knife goes deep a lot of muscle is trimmed with the fat.
ReplyDeleteWayne,
Human Resources Director at WebsterRogers LLP
True. Since I cant really let this client go away during such tough times - I am indeed working on getting to "non-laid off" candidates. But trust me I aint making making any special efforts to service their requirements.
ReplyDeleteTalk about poetic justice!
Girish, please don't take this as a criticism of you. Not at all! I was only referring to the clients short-sightedness in failing to fully exploit the market. You have to serve the client in the manner requested and just as long as she/he doesn't compromise your integrity (ask you to perform illegal acts) you got to do what you got to do to fill the order. If we ever get to work together on a job order, I promise you I'll ask you to conduct a wide open search!
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Ben
Yes Ben. Thanks for bringing in the right perspective. I would continue to serve my clients impartially - as you have suggested.
ReplyDeleteSay what??? So now employers are saying being "laid off" represents a problem hire? I am lost with that thinking. Of couse we know that statistics say that this is be best group because of the high motivation and skill levels that they possess. So, first we nickel and dime this group by hiring them for less than they are worth and now we seek to stigmatize them? I'm with Beverly's thinking on this one and the recruiter community really has to stand up for managing talent at the door (ie. hiring tactics) and not just doing what they are told. That said, I do recognize the boat Girish and Ben are in and hopefully, you can find a way to work the true meaning of recruitment and talent management/workforce planning into your recruitment practices and client mission...
ReplyDeleteSusan
Hey, Susan. Thanks for your comments but want to clear up a tiny point. I work for a company that would fire a recruiter (internal or External) who accepted non bonafide occupational requirements for a job order. I am lucky in this regard but can remember previous jobs where my boss wanted to set some silly non job related criteria and when I pushed back, got little support from Corporate. So I empathize with Girish and can sense he is doing his best to persuade the hiring manager to be inclusive instead of exclusive in his/her hiring requirements.
ReplyDeleteBen
This year I have twice been notified that my non-employed status was an issue. In June, four months ago, one third-party recruiter wrote "Your experience and education look great for this position. However, the client has requested only currently employed candidates at this time." Who knows how many employers hold a bias against anyone unemployed?
ReplyDeletePresently, my search continues and so does that of the anonymous employer. They posted their ad again this month. That means they have been searching no less than four months. If contingency recruiters are used, I imagine they are frustrated and losing money. Who benefits in this case?
Thanks Ben and oh yes, I recognize the difference. My comment was more about shifting the paradigm in general are around non-specific requirements of all kinds... not just the "laid off" thing. I do say with clarity that the shifting paradigm needs recruiting to be a part of a full scale Talent Management strategy with Talent Acquisition being merely a subset. Having a job spec that will take 4 months or more is not beneficial to anyone-- that means the hiring manager and the pocketbook of the recruiter. This is why I empathize with what Girish has pointed out as the dilemma-- we all need to put food on our tables and have to look at job orders with that in mind. But, I do think there is still room to educate our clients on best practices and the prices the organization will pay (ie. dollars, succession plan, increased training costs...) when full talent management/workforce planning is not a full process.
ReplyDeleteSo, apologies if I misunderstood your point Ben. Hopefully though you can appreciate my comments from a macro perspective relative to what recruitment needs to be to build a workforce that is competitive globally, that is, having the right person, in the right seat at the right time--- AND recruiters and hiring managers need to own visionary parameters to get there. "No laid off" parameter is hardly visionary...
Susan
Maybe you can get the client to look at it differently, they surely need to....what if I owned company with more than an average of 10 years tenure per employee and the company closes it's doors in the US and moves all of its production off shores, is that the fault of the employee and show they are not worthy of a position in his organization? Does it show a loyal long term employee who values the company and their working position with in the company? I've personally never experienced a company taking that particular stand especially in today's economy. I can't tell you how many companies being asked to cut back so far in their labor force it didn't matter if you were a go worker or not you were impacted.
ReplyDelete