or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple joins list of US companies pledging to end hiring discrimination against long-term unemployed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins list of US companies pledging to end hiring discrimination against long-term unemployed - Page 2

post #41 of 53
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post
A qualified person of any of the persuasions you mentioned would tell you to stuff it. He/she would rather get a job based on merit rather than your perception of them being *diverse*.

 

See, he’s mocking the common corporate (and school) policy of having a diversity quota, forgoing better candidates because of laws, etc.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCC View Post

Just because they say that they won't discriminate doesn't mean that they won't. People in HR have a mindset that will be difficult to break. After all, if YOU were given a choice between someone who's employed vs someone who hasn't worked for a few years, who would YOU choose?

qualification: if both candidates qualify for the job.

 

In most tech companies HR leaves the final hiring decisions to the managers that they will be working under. HR just vets the candidates. If the company policy is to not discriminate based on length of unemployment, that just means one less thing HR has to worry about. It will be up to the managers to decide if that affects the potential employee's qualifications for the position. If the candidate has been out of work and has missed opportunities for hands on experience with newer technologies or processes, then that unemployment limits their qualifications and can be used non-discriminately. Otherwise, all things being equal, it should not be considered a negative factor. 
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

 

Wait, are you telling me that you hire employees and don't negotiate on salary? Are you saying that you just took whatever offer your current employer made?

 

A position has a salary band. In the interview process, I try to get an idea of salary requirements from the candidate. An employed candidate is going to come in MUCH higher than an unemployed candidate. 

 

I never said that I take whatever is offered, or don't negotiate. I said I don't use employment status as the basis for that consideration, nor would I "leverage" their circumstances to get "a deal" on their compensation. I don't aim to benefit off of the misfortunes of others. 

 

I also noted that we always establish a salary range internally, and typically our candidates are at least partially aware of that range before/when they apply. Where that ultimately lands depends on skill, experience, etc. I've had people come in really needing the job, selling themselves too cheaply, and I've hired them within a higher salary range that we'd established for the position. I don't believe in underpaying people just because they don't "get" what they're worth. Part of being an employer is mentoring people, building real value in them, enabling and empowering them, and compensating more than fairly for what they contribute to your success. At least, that's my personal business philosophy and approach. It's served me well enough over the many years.

 

I believe it's a false narrative when you declare, "An employed candidate is going to come in MUCH higher than an unemployed candidate." Not necessarily. Why? It really is entirely cased by case. 

 

The point here is that I think "current employments status" should never be a criteria or consideration, aside from how it might affect the candidate's actual qualifications (e.g. they've been out of the loop in their field long enough to lose the skills needed). It's akin to gender or age or race discrimination. Those don't affect a person's potential, or their qualifications in real terms. Nor does one's employment status. Are they qualified? Yes or no. "Currently unemployed" isn't a valid disqualifying answer on its own. It just isn't.

post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post
 

Time to get the government out of the business of entitlements, so people will not be incentivized to turn to the government for handouts...  Then you would have more people remaining in the workforce and less "long-term unemployed".

 

Wow, what an ignorant regurgitation of right wing talking points that was. 

 

First, did our unemployment rate blossom to over 10% because suddenly 10% of America's Workforce decided, "To hell with it! I'm not going to "remain in the workforce", I'm going to go live off "government entitlement handouts" from now on! Unemployment is *free money* so I'm just going to quit my job and sign up!"

 

You're saying if there was no Unemployment Insurance, those people would've remained in the workforce and..... WHAT?? Yep. A pretty ignorant and mistaken image of reality.

 

Have you ever tried "living on unemployment"? Do you think people are happy there, satisfied by relegating their lives to the edge of poverty? I don't see any incentive at all to remaining unemployed. Unless the only jobs available pay LESS than unemployment insurance. That's a piss-poor job market, not an overabundance of "entitlements".

 

So how is Unemployment Insurance an "entitlement" or a "handout"?? Unemployment Insurance is neither of those. It's an insurance policy. One that you pay into, over many years of employment, that provides a safety net in case the company you work for suddenly cuts half its workforce, or closes down due to a crashed economy, or whatever happens that causes you to lose your employment. You don't get to claim it when you QUIT.

 

It isn't a "handout". You worked and paid into it. 

 

OUR government belongs in the business of managing safety nets because part of the reason for creating our Constitution was to "promote the general welfare", which most of us believe includes supporting people when things get so bad they can't find a job to save their lives. 

 

We've had too much starvation and death due to hard times before, and decided NO MORE in our Great Society. That's why we have Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Food Supplements, and other safety net programs. The first three we ALL pay into for our own "account" when we work. Don't tell ME it's a "handout" or some "free money entitlement" when I claim against them in times of need. 

 

Don't you dare!

 

Go and get educated, and stop spewing "stupid" here. Please!

 

 

PS: There is a tiny slice of our society that abuses these benefits. We are not talking about removing what's good to punish the few miscreants. Don't even suggest that. Suggest we fix what's broken, not removing what saves so many lives. That's stupidity and ignorance talking.

post #45 of 53
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

We've had too much starvation and death due to hard times before, and decided NO MORE in our Great Society. That's why we have Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Food Supplements, and other safety net programs.

 

Yeah, but we can’t afford them.

 
The first three we ALL pay into for our own "account" when we work.

 

Yeah, but that money goes to current recipients, not us.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Yeah, but we can’t afford them.

 

Yeah, but that money goes to current recipients, not us.

 

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or provocative, or serious.... so I'll just reply as if it's a continuing discussion :)

 

We can't afford them? Social Security and Medicare are both solvent. As usual we'll have to nudge payments in a bit higher over time to keep pace with inflation, and always work to make the programs more efficient and cost-effective, but both of those programs are currently solvent, self-sustaining programs.

 

Unemployment Insurance is a completely different animal, I believe state managed and federally supplemented. More complicated, and yes, more comes from the federal budget during longer economic downturns like this one. But the money they are talking about extending isn't in billions, it's still in millions, and in a TRILLION dollar budget, it does seem rather a paltry thing to be so vitriolic about, especially when it can actually help to prevent people from falling into poverty long term.

 

There may be a small slice of unemployment/welfare recipients who are perfectly content where they are, and willing to just sit back and milk it for as long as they can. Those are in the single-digit percentile group for sure. The vast majority of people who are receiving these benefits can't wait to stop needing them. Are actively seeking alternatives (although after years, many having given up in despair). 

 

We can afford $600 billion for our military, more than the rest of the world's military budgets COMBINED. We can afford to give huge subsidies to oil and big agro, but we can't afford to make sure the poorest among us don't starve, are enabled and empowered, provided opportunity to rise above their misfortunes? I know a couple who have been prosperous in the past who are really struggling today. They aren't lazy people. But the job market is still horrible out here. They both work, near-minimum-wage jobs now. They're not living off their benefits anymore. But their lives are way different than before. Not everyone is able to even get that far.

 

Bottom line is this: We HAVE to afford it. Can you imagine the alternative? Close it all down and watch what happens... it won't remain a country or society you could remotely be proud of, that's for sure. (Frankly, I already struggle to retain that feeling about our country, especially where our politics are concerned.)

 

And as for "current recipients" receiving funds, well, yeah? Who else will receive the funds paid in? SS pays out according to what you paid in. Like a retirement account. A big pool of money earning more money to pay out in later years. It isn't 'bankrupt' or 'insolvent'. That's a myth perpetuated by the right wing who has always wanted to kill the program...... There will always be someone currently receiving payments, and someone currently paying in for the future..... the pool is huge. Not at risk. 

 

OK? :)


Edited by tribalogical - 2/1/14 at 11:52am
post #47 of 53
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

We can afford $600 billion for our military, more than the rest of the world's military budgets COMBINED.


I have something written somewhere as to the future unaffordable nature of the program, but darn if I can’t remember anything. Slight correction, though.

 

 

 

We HAVE to afford it.

 

That’s about the most dangerous justification I’ve ever heard.

 
Can you imagine the alternative? Close it all down and watch what happens...

 

That’s hardly the only option.

 

And as for "current recipients" receiving funds, well, yeah? Who else will receive the funds paid in?

 

You said it’s an “account”, as though the funds you put in are for you and will later be withdrawn by you. But your funds go to everyone else already on the program.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #48 of 53
Not taking compassion into account and completely ignoring the $600B that a small fraction of could keep these extremely essential safety nets afloat. Remember, but for the grace of God...
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

I believe it's a false narrative when you declare, "An employed candidate is going to come in MUCH higher than an unemployed candidate." Not necessarily. Why? It really is entirely cased by case. 

 

There are exceptions to everything.

 

When I've had a job, and interviewed elsewhere, my "salary expectation" is high enough that it's embarrassing to say out loud, and I've gotten those offers. The one time I was looking while unemployed, I lowered my sights a bit to get the conversation started.

 

I've had candid conversations about this will peers before, and my model is not unique.

 

When recruiting, what I see follows as well.

 

But yeah, there are exceptions. Not that I've seen though.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

The point here is that I think "current employments status" should never be a criteria or consideration, aside from how it might affect the candidate's actual qualifications (e.g. they've been out of the loop in their field long enough to lose the skills needed). It's akin to gender or age or race discrimination. Those don't affect a person's potential, or their qualifications in real terms. Nor does one's employment status. Are they qualified? Yes or no. "Currently unemployed" isn't a valid disqualifying answer on its own. It just isn't.

 

I agree with this and have not said anything to the contrary here.

 

My statement is that with two equally qualified individuals, one employed, and one unemployed, I'm betting that the salary conversation won't start in the same place, and between those two people, the unemployed candidate will be more attractive because they will cost less. All else being equal, it is a business decision, as in, for money. Either candidate is going to fall into the salary band for the position and experience, so nobody is getting screwed. I'm not running across people who don't know what they're worth, just people who may or may not have the confidence to rough me up during negotiations.

post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

 

I agree with this and have not said anything to the contrary here.

 

My statement is that with two equally qualified individuals, one employed, and one unemployed, I'm betting that the salary conversation won't start in the same place, and between those two people, the unemployed candidate will be more attractive because they will cost less. All else being equal, it is a business decision, as in, for money. Either candidate is going to fall into the salary band for the position and experience, so nobody is getting screwed. I'm not running across people who don't know what they're worth, just people who may or may not have the confidence to rough me up during negotiations.

 

That was a fantastically level and considered answer. Thank you! I don't really have anything to add, except to say I genuinely enjoyed the conversation! :)

post #51 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 


I have something written somewhere as to the future unaffordable nature of the program, but darn if I can’t remember anything. Slight correction, though.

 

 

 

That’s about the most dangerous justification I’ve ever heard.

 

That’s hardly the only option.

 

You said it’s an “account”, as though the funds you put in are for you and will later be withdrawn by you. But your funds go to everyone else already on the program.

 

In your last there, what you're describing is essentially a "Ponzi Scheme", and I assure you, Social Security isn't that. It's a "pooled fund", which has funds enough in it for the next couple of decades (not accounting for additions), and we adjust the intake over time to insure its long-term viability. 

 

There's nothing dangerous about doing a thing out of necessity. Unless you do it mindlessly, which we are not. What's mindless is the whole-cloth slashing of safety-net budgets without considering the real consequences of that. Starvation, increased poverty and crime, illness and destitution. Lovely image that!

 

If there are satisfactory alternatives available, why aren't we engaging those INSTEAD of and BEFORE simply lopping the head off the system, leaving already extremely vulnerable people in a worse state?

 

Military Budgets: our ratio of spend to the rest of the world does vacillate considerably year by year. I was quoting something from memory that I'd read a good while ago (high chance of error there in these old grey cells :D). It's equally likely they were comparing our spend with the rest of the western/allied countries (NATO, et al) when they said we spend more than all others combined, rather than the entire world...

 

Either way, we spend far too much on our military adventures, and far too little on our infrastructure, environment and the 'common welfare'...

post #52 of 53

The fact that corporations were EVER allowed to discriminate against the unemployed shows a huge character gap for ALL presidents and congresses and shows their true loyalties.

Apple, aka Steve's outside hire Suit & Tie Exec transplantsare running around putting out little fires to avoid the Obama Administration who are really leftover Clintonites, from sicking Holder (Janet Reno's ß) on them like the Clinton Admin did Microsoft and try breaking it up.

Otherwise Apple has little interest in politics.

post #53 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

One reason someone might be "out of the workforce" would be trying to start up and run your own business, and it doesn't work out for whatever reasons.

The best way to get a job is to make friends with the higher ups or someone who is NOT in HR. Word of mouth and personal networking are the most important ways into a job in my experience.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple joins list of US companies pledging to end hiring discrimination against long-term unemployed