When Sony Ericsson needed new workers after it relocated its U.S. headquarters to Atlanta last year, its recruiters told one particular group of applicants not to bother. "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all," one online job listing said.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz1NI7QZBWd
That's been a common unsaid rule for most jobs that pay above minimum wage. They know better than to hire people who don't take personal responsibility or initiative. They will often hire someone working at McDonald over someone unemployed with slightly better skills qualifications. I've know this for years. There were two times I was laid off, and delivered pizza's. Had no problems getting a good job already being employed. They see you aren't lazy, mooching off of others.
Sucks for the unemployed, but that's the way it is. When companies start layoffs, they dump their underperformers first. When companies start to rehire, the unemployed are perceived as someone else's underperformer.
All things considered, I'm glad I still have a job. At 44 I ain't lookin as great as I used to.
44? n00b.
No surprise there.
Why is that?
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm a little more ugly and starting to go gray.
Chances are, if you have a job, you don't have time to waste searching for another one, assuming it is a lower end job.
There are many unemployed people who are 'taking the initiative' going job-hunting every day. Sorry, but that DOES take initiative. It takes patients, and a strong gut too.
There are some extremely hard workers out there who care about what they do, and just lack the social skills to get hired. To have a mandate to not take unemployed people is a case of chopping off your nose to spite your face.
Its probably cheaper to hire in unemployed people than to try and pry away existing employees as well...
Each individual position should be done on a case by case basis...
"They know better than to hire people who don't take personal responsibility or initiative."
Do they? Then why do they hire, then lay off millions of people?
So you're telling us that you didn't take personal responsibility or initiative... at least twice. Okay.
An example of employers organizing as a class if there ever was one.
The ball is in the employers court now with the economy tanking and so many people out of work. They can low ball new employees and give little to no pay raises to their current employees and rake in huge profits.
Human-Americans are gonna be ed hard for a long time.
Corporate-Americans' elimination of Human-Americans as mere drains on management/stockholder gains are unstoppable.
WC shows so much initiative he's a ing parts changer.
Retirement And The Recession: Savings Destroyed For One Out Of Four Older Workers, Says AARP Survey
WASHINGTON -- Workers older than 50 are gloomy about retirement after getting beat up by the Great Recession, according to a survey released Tuesday by AARP's Public Policy Ins ute.
During the course of the economic downturn that started in December 2007 and technically ended in June 2009, one in four older workers burned through all of his or her retirement savings, the survey found.
More than half of older workers weren't confident they'd have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, and nearly half said they expected a "less economically secure" retirement than their parents had.
"Many older Americans have been buffeted by skyrocketing health care costs, dwindling home values, shrinking pension and investment portfolios, and employment struggles," AARP executive John Rother said in a statement. "Even if you have a job, this survey demonstrates that you are not immune to the negative effects of the recession."
Even though the unemployment rate for older workers is much lower than for their younger counterparts, 12.4 percent of the 50-plus cohort told AARP they lost their health insurance, 49.5 percent said they delayed medical or dental care because of financial troubles and 13.5 percent said they started to collect Social Security retirement benefits earlier than they'd previously planned.
Take, for example, the case of a 63-year-old tutor, who said she'd been laid off in June 2010 by a private teaching company. The woman, who lives in southern California, asked for anonymity because she feared revealing her name would be "deadly, deadly" for her job search.
The former tutor told HuffPost she opted for early Social Security retirement benefits in January after a fruitless six-month job hunt. Since she opted for benefits before her full retirement age -- which would have been at 66 years old -- she received only 80 percent of her full benefit, which she said amounts to $857 a month. It covers rent, she said, but doesn't leave much for food.
"I eat a lot of apples, bananas, rice, and pasta," the woman said, adding that she tends a garden with tomatoes, cu bers and cantaloupes.
Laid off older workers have a tougher time than most age groups finding new work. The average jobless spell for workers 55 and up lasts longer than a year, and older workers who lose long-held jobs are much less likely to find new work than younger workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tml?view=print
My retirement plan is a bottle of vodka and a shotgun.
Do you understand the extent of my job?
"Parts Changer" is a funny le I will go with. However, the technical skills have to do the job are more than you might realize, and I'm well paid for it. My end of April paycheck shows a 2011 year to date of $31,788.46.
Is that OK for a Parts Changer?
Boom goes the logic bomb!
Paycheck smack? Really?
Whatever.Paycheck smack? Really?
This "parts changer" thing is funny, but annoying too.
As a business owner who (used to) sign paychecks (everything is direct deposit now), I have to fix this:
"order to stay in business"
When mgmt is firing 10Ks of employees then pockets $10Ms in executive pay and stock dividends, it ain't ing "in order to stay in business".
Why the Rich Love Unemployment
A JPMorgan research report concludes that the current corporate profit recovery is more dependent on falling unit-labor costs than during any previous expansion. At some level, corporate executives are aware that they are lowering workers’ living standards, but their decisions are neither coordinated nor intentionally harmful. Call it the “paradox of profitability.” Executives are acting in their own and their shareholders’ best interest: maximizing profit margins in the face of weak demand by extensive layoffs and pay cuts. But what has been good for every company’s income statement has been a disaster for working families and their communities.
The unemployment crisis has its origins in the housing crash, but the prior deregulation of the labor market made the fallout more severe. Like other changes to economic policy in recent decades, the deregulation of the labor market tilts the balance of power in favor of business and against workers. Unlike financial system reform, the deregulation of the labor market is not on President Obama’s agenda and has escaped much commentary.
Another consequence of labor-market flexibility has been the shift from full-time jobs to temporary positions. In 2010, 26 percent of all news jobs were temporary – compared with less than 11 percent in the early 1990′s recovery and just 7.1 percent in the early 2000′s.
unemployed workers don’t merit the same massive government intervention that served GM and the banks so well. When Wall Street was on the ropes, both administrations sensibly argued, “doing nothing is not an option.” For the long-term unemployed, doing nothing appears to be Washington’s preferred policy.
“We are and have been in the longest ‘bad news is good news’ moment that I have ever come across in my 31 years of trading. That means the bad news keeps producing the low interest rates that make stocks, particularly stocks with decent dividend protection, more attractive than their fixed income alternatives.” In other words, the longer Ben Bernanke’s policies fail to lower unemployment, the longer Wall Street enjoys a free ride.
Out-of-work Americans deserve more than unemployment checks – they deserve dividends. The rich would never have recovered without them.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...+capitalism%29
and we'll still have to pay for your healthcare. what a ing loser.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
