How is it easier to get a job when you already have one?

melysion

Dangermac wrote: »

Nonsense.

One of the main reasons that most/many employers would prefer a candidate who is already in employment, is that the candidate would be joining the new employer for (hopefully) the right reasons, whereas, someone not in work may be taking the job because it solves a short-term income problem, and may use the new job as a 'stepping stone'.

Nothing to do with blind prejudice at all. Please stop getting depressed

DM

But, you have just assumed that many unemployed people would just apply for a job as a ¨stepping stone¨. And haven't really considered the possibility that employed people might be applying just to escape their current job! You don't know whether the unemployed person might really want the job any less than the employed one - and in all fairness that should be assessed on the basis of an interview and not solely on the basis of employment status.

So, yes, absolutely blind prejudice. You have just proved it.

mattcanary

noelphobic wrote: »

I was pretty much offered a zero hours contract in February but am having to go for an interview for it on Thursday (long story!) If nothing more permanent comes up before I (hopefully) start then it should be the perfect stop gap for me. I will be earning money (zero income at present), gaining useful experience and will still have time to look for jobs and go for interviews. Plus something more permanent could come up within the organisation (I was also offered that before, another long story!)

If you have bills to pay,, zeo hour contracts can be more trouble than they're worth

Dangermac

melysion wrote: »

But, you have just assumed that many unemployed people would just apply for a job as a ¨stepping stone¨. And haven't really considered the possibility that employed people might be applying just to escape their current job! You don't know whether the unemployed person might really want the job any less than the employed one - and in all fairness that should be assessed on the basis of an interview and not solely on the basis of employment status.

So, yes, absolutely blind prejudice. You have just proved it.

It's not blind prejudice. It's a fact of life. Someone who is unemployed are more likely to use an opportunity as a stepping stone, more so than someone who is in employment.

Personally, I would employ someone who is unemployed, but I would need to understand the process leading to the unemployment, and whether the 'stepping stone'; issue comes into play.

Rather than saying that all employers engage blind prejudice, who not use the information which I have helpfully provided to your advantage.

DM

melysion

Dangermac wrote: »

It's not blind prejudice. It's a fact of life. Someone who is unemployed are more likely to use an opportunity as a stepping stone, more so than someone who is in employment.

Personally, I would employ someone who is unemployed, but I would need to understand the process leading to the unemployment, and whether the 'stepping stone'; issue comes into play.

Rather than saying that all employers engage blind prejudice, who not use the information which I have helpfully provided to your advantage.

DM

And would you assume that many employed people (such as myself - I am not unemployed) just want to jump ship because they hate their job?

I suspect not. I suspect you are much less likely to question the motives of the employed person and yet I know many people who loathe their jobs and will do almost anything to find something else. Rather like some unemployed people will take any job to get off the dole queue I imagine.

It is most definitely easier to get a job when you have one already. But it shouldn't be.

BillJones

melysion wrote: »

Mindless prejudice against the unemployed, many of thrm highly skilled and unlucky emough to be made redundant. Doesn't make any sense to me at all

No-one's expressing mindless prejudice, though. They are simply using Bayesian statistics to maximize the probability that they get the best possible candidate.

As has been patiently explained already, for two otherwise similar candidates, if there is nothing else to choose between them, you are more likely to get the better person if you pick the employed one.

This is because worse workers are more likely in the first place to have lost their jobs than good workers.

Do you not believe this to be the case, that companies drop bad workers in preference to good ones, or do you not believe that this skews the pool of unemployed (as a whole) to be of generally lower quality than the pool of employed people?

Dangermac

melysion wrote: »

And would you assume that many employed people (such as myself - I am not unemployed) just want to jump ship because they hate their job?

I suspect not. I suspect you are much less likely to question the motives of the employed person and yet I know many people who loathe their jobs and will do almost anything to find something else. Rather like some unemployed people will take any job to get off the dole queue I imagine.

It is most definitely easier to get a job when you have one already. But it shouldn't be.

When looking at a CV or speaking to a candidate, it is important for any employer to know why a candidate is moving from their current role. Therefore, you are wrong.

As such, it would appear that employers discriminate against both employed and unemployed candidates, which sort of implies that discrimnation doesnt exist.

Anyway, the whole discussion is slightly pointless because employers are free to employ whoever they want to, providing they dont discriminate against a protected characteristic (age, sex, race etc).

Discrimination is a fact of life. Without discrimination, you would be duty bound to employ anyone who asked you for a job.

It is perfectly legal to discriminate in respect of a non-protected characteristic. So, if an employer chooses not to employ on the basis of: ability, hair colour, height, unpleasant smell, apperance, skill-set, whether currently unemployed, whether currently employed etc etc etc, that is their choice.

No different to the fact that you chose to visit MSE instead of some other web-forum. That is discrimination. In other words, you made a decision.

DM

melysion

BillJones wrote: »

No-one's expressing mindless prejudice, though. They are simply using Bayesian statistics to maximize the probability that they get the best possible candidate.

As has been patiently explained already, for two otherwise similar candidates, if there is nothing else to choose between them, you are more likely to get the better person if you pick the employed one.

This is because worse workers are more likely in the first place to have lost their jobs than good workers.

Do you not believe this to be the case, that companies drop bad workers in preference to good ones, or do you not believe that this skews the pool of unemployed (as a whole) to be of generally lower quality than the pool of employed people?

No, not at all. Given my own field of work as an example. I work in academia. People lose their jobs when their grant money runs out. This has absolutely no relevance to how they have performed and is no indication of how good or bad they were. Its simply because the funding has run out - and good or bad, that's not something they could have controlled. And many would be unemployed for a while because science funding is so dire at the moment.

There are many good workers that have lost their jobs over bad ones. I have seen excellent people leave my group - better people than me probably, But they were the ones that left because it was their money that ran out. Thats it.

Theres no way you can prove that unemployed people are in some way generally of lesser calibre than employed. There are some pretty useless employees out there you know. A lot of it is down to luck!

And what happens if a whole business goes bankrupt? Are you seriously saying those employees lost their jobs because they were bad workers? Of course not!

I know. You arent likely to budge on your opinion. But its no wonder there are so many hopeless long term unemployed people out there with this sort of attitude.

AP007

melysion wrote: »

I would agree, but the employed do have a significant advantage over the unemployed. Furthermore, I have read that in the USA at least, some firms have declared that the unemployed need not apply on their job advertisements. Says all you need to know really.

I have seen adverts saying the same and they can say that.

AP007

BillJones wrote: »

This is because worse workers are more likely in the first place to have lost their jobs than good workers.

I was the team leader and AAT level 3 so far from the worse worker in the team with 20 years expereince where the next one down to me had only 5 years. It is sometimes more like the most expensive. I got made redundant and the 3 management accountants got told to do my job. Saved them my salary, 25 days holiday (plus bh) when the others were on 20 days plus bh etc

scooby088

mattcanary wrote: »

If you have bills to pay,, zeo hour contracts can be more trouble than they're worth

The same could be said if you were unemployed, ideally I would like 40 hours per week but I was unemployed for 2 years and was desperate fortunately I got a contract with the company after being there via an agency for 7 months.

I am going to ask if they could give me a guaranteed 16 hours per week tomorrow but I doubt they will but if you dont ask you dont get.