First Comment

Back in February I wrote a blog post about the vicious cycle of unemployment where the unemployed find it harder and harder to get hired which just keeps them further away from being employed. Many states (like New Jersey) have gotten ahead of the federal government and has banned discrimination against the unemployed, but as a bill is going to be introduced before Congress banning this type of discrimination on a country-wide level, TIME Magazine took another look at what happens when companies refuse to hire the unemployed (H/T Wendy):

Refusing to hire people on the basis of race, religion, age or disability — among other categories — is illegal. But companies that turn away jobless people as a group are generally not breaking the law — at least for now.


Job seekers have long known, of course, that it's easier to land a job when you are still working. There are no hard data on discrimination against the unemployed. But there have been reports from across the country of companies' making clear in job listings that they are not interested in people who are out of work. Employment experts say other companies have policies of hiring only people with jobs — but do not publicly acknowledge their bias.

TIME did a lot of work in this issue profiling the out of work in America including profiles of some of those who are unemployed. Check it out and know that your refusal to hire someone who is unemployed could end up being illegal in the very near future.

For some it may seem easier to get a job if you're unemployed. Intuitively, the unemployed have more time to interview, are willing to accept lower salaries and have future employers who know they can start right away. But the large amount of unemployed in this recession has proven one thing: being unemployed is not a recipe for success in this economy. And the problem then becomes if you are unemployed and that prevents you from getting hired that the more this occurs, the further the unemployed fall from employability in many employer's eyes--it becomes a vicious cycle of unemployment.

This was recounted in a recent article on Yahoo! (H/T Wendy) which says that it's gotten so bad and so prevalent that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is trying to get "unemployed" as another factor you can't discriminate against a candidate: "With the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer at a whopping 6.2 million, and with 4.7 unemployed workers for every job opening, advocates for the jobless say this growing form of hiring discrimination creates another hurdle for the increasingly desperate ranks of the unemployed. 'At a moment when we all should be doing whatever we can to open up job opportunities to the unemployed, it is profoundly disturbing that the trend of deliberately excluding the jobless from work opportunities is on the rise,' Christine Owens, who runs the National Employment Law Center, told the EEOC."

The article hints that it may also be a case of racial or age discrimination as many more of the unemployed are African American or older, the former of which would also violate civil rights laws. This is not an issue that is going away and yet many job postings online still prohibit those who are unemployed for applying. Do the skills actually go away? Does the fact that everyone was downsizing mean those laid off are actually the weakest link? Probably not but it gives employers a good excuse when the volume of resumes continues to pile up.

At the very least, articles like this should give HR professionals some pause and to rethink their hiring practices. Because while this is an employers market, the last thing you want is to get in trouble with the government because of your hiring practices.

I was speaking with a former co-worker this past week and she happened to tell me about some good personal news that she recently found out about. When I loudly gave my congratulations she shushed me and told me not to spread the news because she didn't want her company to find out. This wasn't something that would effect the company or a new job opportunity or anything of the sort and while I was confused I understood her predicament.

There is a very fine line between too much information at work and being personable and sharing. Most of us work collaboratively while at our jobs but very few of us know that much about the people we work with. Some of that is intentional with employees failing to share the good or the bad when it could really help foster better communication with others. An employer should know when something bad is going on in an employee's life so they can maybe give them some extra time to deal with a sick parent or allow them to get out a little early on a Tuesday so they can go to physical therapy for that ailing back. And an employer should know when good things are happening with their employees so they can share in their joy of a birth of a new child or an engagement.

The problem is that the workplace isn't always an atmosphere conducive to sharing. Health issues aren't supposed to be talked about with certain people and employees may worry that revealing bad health may open them up to discrimination. A new child or a spouse could mean higher healthcare costs and make employees think that employers will hold that against them. Employees usually don't have incentive to share and that is what employers need to work to change. Reward and announce good news--even if it is personal. Allow employees to stretch vacation times if a loved one is dying or give them a holiday present of a new chair if they have a chronic bad back. When employees feel like they all know each other better, collaboration occurs even more.

The past few months, two somewhat conflicting reports about women (and their looks) in the workplace have come out.

In August, Reuters reported that attractive women were being overlooked for certain jobs. The study by the University of Colorado Denver Business School published in the Journal of Social Psychology concluded "Attractive women faced discrimination when they applied for jobs where appearance was not seen as important. These positions included job titles like manager of research and development, director of finance, mechanical engineer and construction supervisor."

Then, earlier this month, the New York Post reported that skinnier women earn significantly more than those who are of average weight or classified as obese. The study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that "being 30 pounds below the average American female weight of 164 pounds can result in roughly $10,719 more in annual salary -- above the average woman's pay of $40,000. Being 30 pounds overweight can mean making $9,873 less than average." I think that this may be more of a case of skinnier people being more energetic, healthier, and confident than the case of discrimination, but it is interesting indeed.

Lastly, the EU parliament voted in favor of a number of measures to strengthen maternity protection in Europe including a 20-week full maternity pay for new mothers according to HR Magazine. The proposal also contains "rules employers will be banned from dismissing pregnant workers until six months after the end of their maternity leave."

Not exactly in the park, but it is a beautiful Saturday to be there and if you want some great links while you're lounging in the sun.

From ben's blog, some advice about the right way to lay off an employee. The steps? Get your head right, don't delay, be clear in your own mind about why you are laying people off, train your managers, be visible and be present. "After seeing their friends laid off, employees were no longer willing to make the requisite sacrifices needed to build a company. He said that although it was possible to survive an isolated layoff, it was hugely unlikely that a company would experience great success."

From ESPN New York, an interesting conflict between the New York Jets and a female reporter. The interesting part of this story has been the response from other female journalists who have been less than supportive of Ines Sainz, the woman who filed the complaint of discrimination and harassment.

Interview Tips has 20 ways to nail an interview with some hilarious videos of people who didn't come close to doing so (H/T Wendy). Number 16 may be the worst.

There are job reports out there, but finally there is The Hidden Job Report.

And lastly, some advice about what a company blog should look like from The New York Enterprise Report (H/T Jennifer)

Sorry we've missed you for a few days here at the Astron blog. In the middle of moving and that has been no fun. But I have some fun links for you to read over the weekend. Here's how to know it when you see it.

The first is from Career Solvers and is good advice for the job seeker on how to spot a job scam.

Next comes from The Recruiters Lounge and it's advice for a the interviewer of how to know if you're being lied to in a job interview...and how to counter it.

From Grub Street New York, word that the Gristedes supermarket chain's gender discrimination lawsuit is becoming a class action lawsuit--if only people knew what to spot beforehand..

Lastly, from the Examier, a very off-color way to answer weird interview questions. Not exactly PC, but shows how dumb some of the questions are when you see how you can answer them.

If you don't watch AMC's hit show Mad Men, you should start immediately. It's a fabulous show about a fictional 1960s Madison Avenue advertising agency named Sterling Cooper and the trials of tribulations of the agency and the main character, Don Draper.

One of the things that's great about the show is how they keep everything authentic for the time. That means that people drink, smoke, and take part in a lot of other activities that make Human Resource professionals cringe today, including excluding all minorities (and Jews), gender discrimination, and sexual harassment. But how much of what takes place in Sterling Cooper would not be allowed to go on today? Halogen Life did a great look at that and determined that while the drinking and the smoking may fly in certain states and certain companies, the sexual harassment and discrimination would not (H/T Jay for the article). Here are their conclusions:

• Smoking - A smoke-filled Madison Avenue boardroom couldn’t legally exist today as New York, along with 22 other states, has laws banning smoking in the workplace, but unless the federal government or your city steps in, you’re free to light up in your office in over half of the states.

• Drinking - For white-collar workers, there’s nothing legally wrong with knocking a few back in the office, per se. Federal law only deals with alcohol consumption in the workplace if it would threaten the health and safety of other employees or the public — like if the employee must drive or operate machinery. Obviously providing drinks to those under 21 can land you in hot water, but unless you happen to live in a particularly “dry” community where the sale and possession of alcohol is regulated, you’re probably in the clear. Office worker bees who don’t have those concerns are free to imbibe, so long as the boss approves.

• Discrimination - Up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination was only prohibited by state and federal governments. Private businesses were free to hire and fire on any criteria they chose. Though actual change was slow coming, the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited businesses with over 15 employees from discriminating based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

• Sexual Harassment/Gender Discrimination - While women were covered in the discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee didn’t explicitly forbid sexual harassment as discrimination until 1980. Today, in the era of mandatory sensitivity trainings, Sterling Cooper would be hit with lawsuits faster than you can cry “sexual harassment.”

• Their conclusion? - It’s unfortunately fathomable that the kind of womanizing and discrimination rampant at Sterling Cooper could still occur today, but if you’re looking to inject a little bit of a Mad Men-esque feel to your work day, be safe and stick with the scotch. And maybe a smoke — outside.

Our conclusion? Show Mad Men at work...during training sessions of what NOT to do in the workplace. There are many more aspects of the show that would garner the attention of Human Resources such as women not being promoted past secretary status (save a token promotion for Peggy). Although romanticized on the show, some aspects of Sterling Cooper are best left in the 1960s, especially if your company wants to avoid fines and lawsuits.

With Andrew "Down Under" for the next two weeks, I'll be taking the lead on blog posts. To kick things off, I'll comment on his excellent post from Saturday.

First, to clarify Andrew's comment regarding his Astron interview, as I remember it was about two hours long. And a fun two hours! Andrew made me laugh with his impressions of a favorite college professor and, more importantly, what he got out of that class. He showed me that he was cool under pressure, knew how to have fun, and wasn't overly self-conscious. Fantastic traits for success in a consulting environment!

Andrew makes several important points in his post regarding probing questions. Best HR practice dictates that interviewers, especially inexperienced interviewers, ask the same questions of each candidate to prevent inadvertent discrimination. While it's not a fun approach, it is a wise one.

However, asking the same questions without the necessary follow up probes reduces the overall effectiveness of the interview. If a standard question reveals a potential red flag, interviewers have the responsibility to delve further to determine suitability for the position and potential risk to the organization. Effective interviewing that balances both these needs is a skill that develops with time, practice, and mentoring.

How structured is the interview process at your organization? How can you make it more effective for both parties?