5 ms·

It's wrong to discriminate on any basis other than an applicant's ability to carry out a post. There is no definitive or provable correlation between employmen

• philwelch 16y ago
  No correlation at all? That can't be true. That's logically equivalent to saying that someone's ability has absolutely no impact at all on the probability that they can remain employed--or, in other words, that employment is completely random with respect to ability. While the employment market is quite flawed in this respect, it's certainly at least a little better than random.
  • lwhi 16y ago
    Perhaps a little better than random - but why use such a poor indicator of suitability when you there are so many other more concrete ways to assess a person's worth in the workplace?
    • philwelch 16y ago
      As a filter. If you have a large pool of applicants you want to take steps that reduce the size of the pool while increasing the average quality inside the pool. Remember, you're not trying to pick the single very best individual in that pool; you're just trying to pick someone who's well qualified. Why? Because processing a large pool of applicants and completely ranking the entire pool is prohibitively expensive and doesn't give the employer much marginal benefit. Now, let's consider what happens in an economy with high structural unemployment. First, the pool of applicants for every job opening becomes much larger, pushing more and more businesses to employ quick, cost-effective filters to the applicant pool. Second, the new people who join this pool are the newly unemployed, who are less likely to be well qualified. Even worse, the people who can't find work stay unemployed, become more desperate, and apply for more jobs, including jobs they're not well qualified for. As a result, there's a lower proportion of well qualified applicants among the unemployed applicants. Sure, there are well qualified applicants in there, just a lower proportion. Lower, even, than there would be if it wasn't for the high structural unemployment. But among the employed applicants, there are just as many well qualified applicants as ever. Also, the pool of already-employed applicants is much smaller than the complete pool of applicants. What happens when you ignore applications from unemployed people? You go from a huge pool with a low proportion of well qualified applicants to a much smaller pool with a higher proportion of well qualified applicants. How is that not a win? And I wouldn't discount this thinking out of hand, either. People generally do things for reasons and act upon the evidence that's available to them. I'm willing to bet that most of these companies that don't even consider unemployed applicants chose that policy because someone went through hundreds of hopeless applications from unemployed and completely unqualified people and decided it wasn't worth the effort. Also, keep in mind that all I've done here is show how it could be rational and self-interested to ignore job applications from unemployed applicants. That's not the same as saying it's fair or morally right.
      • lwhi 16y ago
        I think a lot of incorrect assumptions are being made. What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification? If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications? "Second, the new people who join this pool are the newly unemployed, who are less likely to be well qualified." Why would this be true?
        • philwelch 16y ago
          What does being unemployed have to do with lack of qualification?...Why would [the notion that the newly unemployed are less likely to be well qualified] be true? People who are not well qualified for their jobs tend to be the ones who lose their jobs. People who have been unemployed for a long time become increasingly desperate and apply to a lot of jobs they're not well qualified for. Well-qualified people tend to get hired quickly or at least hold onto the jobs they already have, so they spend less time being unemployed. How is this not obvious? It's hard for me to believe you're asking these questions in good faith. If people who are unemployed generally did happen to lack qualifications, why not judge them on their (lack of) qualifications? Judging someone's qualifications is a difficult and expensive process. Determining whether someone is currently employed or not can be done by a cursory skim of a cover letter and resume. If you have 500 cover letters and resumes for a single job opening to go through and a full day of real work to do, are you going to schedule 500 interviews or are you going to use filters? But now I'm repeating myself.
          • lwhi 16y ago
            So someone who's laid off because their company fails is automatically put into the 'non-qualified' bucket? Once again, I believe people should be judged on their qualifications - not their employment status. It's not a good indicator.
            • philwelch 16y ago
              No, it's a probabilistic statement about unemployed people as a group. If 100 people all apply for one job, you can't afford to treat them as individuals. That's why you use filters. It's not perfectly fair, but on the other hand you're not entitled to five hours of a company's time just because you mailed them a resume. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
• larrik 16y ago
  Maybe not with ability, but how about with employability? Talent alone does not make a good hire.
  • lwhi 16y ago
    Well, yes, there's a definite link between being employed and employability.