Why are the 'job creators' denying responsibility for the "You must be currently employed" ads?

[ck4829]

Job advertisements that require applicants to be "currently employed" are easy to find online. Yet attempts to trace the origins of such discriminatory job ads yield plenty of "It wasn't me" responses from the companies involved.

Many of the businesses insist they don't want to screen out the unemployed and blame the discriminatory language on the middlemen directly responsible for placing the ads.

Discrimination against people who are out of work is a phenomenon that's been in the news since last year, and lately it has been getting a lot more attention. Democrats in both chambers of Congress now want to make it a federal crime.

A recent report by the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, called out 73 businesses for asking in job postings that applicants be currently employed. "This perverse catch-22 is deepening our unemployment crisis by arbitrarily foreclosing job opportunities to many who are otherwise qualified for them," NELP said in the report.

http://www.khq.com/story/15251201/nancy-pelosi-announces-final-super-congress-members

Cowards.

[Love Bug]

1. They can make it a crime, but they can't force them to hire

In a fair world, those out of work the longest would be at the front of the line for any new jobs. But that's not how it works and it never has. These "requirements" are just another way of punishing the unemployed for being unlucky enough to be unemployed in a deep recession/depression.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I think employers have always done this (required candidates to be employed). Problem is...

the mega-rich and corporations have removed jobs from this country, so now there are no jobs, and where the hell do they expect to find so many employed people?

[UpInArms]

3. if they will not hire the unemployed, they are intentionally keeping

the unemployment numbers high - they are sabotaging the country

[unblock]

4. that's not the problem -- it doesn't affect unemployment numbers per se

provided that the other company hires someone to replace the job-shifter and that not ALL companies are only hiring job-shifters.

what it DOES do is prolong the agony for those already unemployed. so instead of having a large pool of short-term unemployed, there's a comparatively smaller pool of long-term unemployed.

a large pool of short-term unemployed means widespread but manageable pain because most can survive short-term unemployment.
a small pool of long-term unemployed is more confined but far more damaging because these people often can never overcome this -- this creates long-term societal problems.

[Rex]

5. Fuck them, I hope the person that decides on the condition

of employment (the CEOs) end up homeless and living in a dumpster.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. A strong federal jobs program (like the CCC or WPA) would snap

a towel under those companies' asses, because it would dry up the employee pool from both unemployed and currently employed. Use the power of the federal government intervening in the labor market to compel responsible corporate behavior.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. This isn't "job creation", it's "musical chairs".

For each job created, another is destroyed. No net gain.