Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

What do you think of the report that business does not like to hire anyone who has been unemployed for more than a year?


Asked by tootoobusy at 11:54 AM on Feb. 20, 2011 in Money & Work

Level 52 (487,465 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (15)
  • I can see a lot of the points here. It stinks because it certainly seems unfair. I think people certainly do have a great chance of loosing their skills over a period of time like that, but then again, are these companies even calling people that have been off for some time to see if they've been keeping up their skills with continuing education or anything? If they're not, then that's totally unfair. I think it's crap that they can choose not to hire you over a bad credit report too. Just because someone has a bad credit report, does that mean they're going to steal from the company or something? No, no justification for that excuse there. Chances are these people NEED a job to help them pay their bills and improve their credit. I guess my opinion is that there are bad ducks in every group, but the places hiring really need to interview people before they make up their mind from something on a piece of paper.

    Answer by monkeymamma72 at 10:33 PM on Feb. 21, 2011

  • When my husband was laid off it took him a year to get another one. He went to job seeking classes and was out and about looking. I think people who have never been laid off have no idea how hard it is and it is stupid not to hire someone just because they have not been working for a year.

    Answer by momavanessa at 12:48 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • I think it sucks! Thats why there are so many chronic unemployed people. Most employers will not hire you if you are not working. So people that were laid off can not find a job because they are not currently employed and the ones with the jobs are considered first when it should be the other way around. I dont see how this makes sense.

    Answer by KayGia0704 at 12:02 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • @SweetLuci" Usually, the worst workers are the ones who get laid off first,'

    how would an employer determine that?

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:26 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • i think it's straight bull crap!

    Answer by ExtremlyUnique at 12:02 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • depends on what kind of business it is.... some times things change rapidly and it is best to hire someone who has kept their skills up. If someone has been unemployed but has volunteered or done something else while looking full time for a job is a much better risk than someone who has done nothing.

    the current situation sucks but you have to look at things from the employers point of view too.  You dont hire to be nice... you hire the best person for your business so that you can grow, and hopefully hire more.  It might not make people happy but you HAVE to make a choice that is best for the business as a whole.

    If you are unemployed it behooves you to keep your skills up while looking.  Even if that means volunteering for no pay.


    Answer by sahlady at 12:07 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • From an employers point of view, if a person has been laid off that long, and hasn't been going to school, or doing free-lance work, or at least volunteering, or took a lower paying job, then it looks like they liked collecting unemployment over working. Usually, the worst workers are the ones who get laid off first, and if they've been at home for more than a year, they've often forgotten the work ethic. They often may have transportation problems or child care difficulties that have occurred since they've been laid off. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it is the perception. It may not be fair, but hiring someone who is working now is a better option for the employer. So, if you've been unemployed and are now looking for work, you need to update your resume, and show what you've been doing to try and find work and upgrade your skills during that time. You need to show the employer that you would be an asset to them

    Answer by SweetLuci at 12:14 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • It's certainly frustrating for those looking legitimately looking very hard for work! My cousin lost his job after being downsized last summer... it took him about eight months of serious job-hunting to find another job, and stats like this were totally freaking him out. It's unfair to say that only the lazy workers would be off that long... times are tough, a lot of people are let go through no fault of their own (ie. downsizing and lack of seniority, contract workers whose contracts have expired, etc.) and the competition for jobs is FIERCE out there!

    Answer by Freela at 12:17 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • For positions that are highly specialized I don't agree with it because there are fewer unemployment opportunities available. But for positions like cashier or waitressing there are a lot more opportunities available, I would be suspicious of someone who wasn't able to find a new position within a year. I know there are a lot of people seeking those position, but if they actively applied for every opportunity I, as an employer, would think there was some reason why the other potential employers had chosen other candidates over them.

    Answer by Linds2Horse at 12:19 PM on Feb. 20, 2011

  • I think most employers know who their stronger workers are and who are the weaker links... if not the employer really isnt doing his/her job properly.


    Answer by Anonymous at 12:31 PM on Feb. 20, 2011