Questionable job application questions

So I went downtown today to fill out a job application. Most companies have an online application now, or at least an application you can print out and mail in. This company requires that you come in and fill out their application online- so I did.

That meant putting in your work history. From that they know when you last worked and here come these questions:

Have you ever collected unemployment compensation?

Why are you unemployed?

Why have you been unemployed for so long?

I don't know if these are "illegal" questions, but I've never been asked these face to face, and it certainly puts one on the defensive. If you don't answer the questions you can't move on to the next part of the application, and they won't even consider you for a job.

I know someone who refused to apply for unemployment compensation when he was laid off because he was a Republican and considered it welfare. Maybe that's the kind of employee they're looking for.

two questions. I've never seen that type of question.

Employers don't like to see long gaps in a resume. Were you in jail? Were you doing graduate work? The answer might tell them whether you'd be reliable. Even the people who give resume-building advice tell you to account of long periods of unemployment right on the resume. Otherwise, you might not even be called in for an interview.

It is oddly worded.

There are people I work with- I work for USPS- who will not file an injury claim because they're temps casuals, and they don't know for sure if they'll get called back when their term is up. They (rightly) fear that filing an injury claim on this job will hinder their getting a different job.

Employers should not have any access to compensation claim information, and they should not be allowed to ask for that information on any application of any kind.

It is none of their business. People should not have to fear filing a sexual harassment suit, filing workman's comp, filing for unemployment compensation or having an illness for that matter. It should be illegal for a potential employer to probe into someone's personal life and past as far as I am concerned.

Does the employer need to know you plan to have children or an operation?

Does the employer need to know you are planning to marry a diabetic and put him on your insurance?

Does the employer need to know you are a peace activist and willing to risk arrest for your beliefs?

How much do you really want to disclose to a potential employer?

Your employer pays premiums for unemployment compensation. They'd rather you didn't collect, because it counts against them, but it's certainly not welfare.

collected it or not? What on earth does that have to do with your eligibility for one of their jobs? And who is walking in the door applying for a job these days that has never collected unemployment compensation?

It is ridiculous now. So I would say those questions are probably not that unusual. A friend of mine works for a big credit union and they have fired three people in the past year for letting their checking account bounce checks. Believe that?

I think that's why they might do what they're doing.

I find it appalling that someone could be fired for bouncing a check.

If you have bad credit you can't get a job in many instances, a checking account, rent anything, on and on.

Unless you work in a bank, or any other type of job where you directly handle money, then your credit history really shouldn't be anyone's business.

job the most probably HAS bad credit because they are unemployed. It sucks.

I would add landlords to that list as well.

On the other hand, there are people who make a living by working long enough to qualify and then maneuvering to get on unemployment insurance, only going back to work when that runs out. I knew a guy who worked that scam for years. During his "downtime," he'd ski, beach bum, or work at jobs where he got paid under the table, sort of double-dipping -- all financed by the bosses who paid the employment compensation premiums.

driving a bus and he collects unemployment during the off season although he does have to work if they call him up and ask him to. He works the school year and gets unemployment compensation all summer without working. Its not fair, and somebody could report him. But nobody does. Its not like he makes a huge amount of money and he collects no benefits.

What I see happening is employers desperately trying to get out of paying for this. People desperately need a safety net. This is my last week of unemployment compensation and I need a job. Do I not deserve to be hired because I have collected unemployment compensation?

I am sick of DUers who defend the corporate point of view - thats why we are in this mess. Things may be "legal" or legit but they are majorly fucked up from a moral point of view.

If there's a logical explanation -- say seasonal work -- then there shouldn't be any problem. Maybe there will be, but some companies are better than others.

But when you're hiring people, you are being paid to make sure the company doesn't end up getting screwed over. It's not easy.

If I was hiring someone and saw he had 10 jobs in eight years, I'd really want to know why. If I didn't, I wasn't doing my job.

You should have no right to know, period.

have no right to be hired by me. If you don't want to answer, be my guest. Next! There are 10 other people in the waiting room.

might help us change some of these practices. There should be a limit to the information a prospective employer can get. No offense.

:puke:

thought of. I am in the computer field. I was laid off from a 2 year job in Mar 2001 during a really terrible time for the economy, especially for tech jobs. I had recently moved to a new city. For 16 months I worked at a convenience store and kept applying for permanent positions with no success. Finally I learned that the only way to get into these companies was as a contractor.

When I did get in, it was with a substantial cut in pay and no benefits, but there was a strong suggestion that I would be hired after 6 months if I did well. This was just a tease. It was just much cheaper for them to have me as a low paid contractor. Finally, after 16 months, I switched to a contract job with another agency that would give me benefits. They promised me a year assigment, but the client cancelled it after 6 months. The agency found me more work, but when that was over they laid me off, and I had a 3 month gap in employment.

After this I went back to company #1 with yet another agency, in the same kind of assignment, supposedly for a year contract. But they had a bad first quarter and they laid me off in April. The reason companies hire contractors is so they can cut back the budget quickly. And so it goes.

For HR people who don't know this we look like job hoppers. In fact we are usually smarter and more versatile than the average employee. But it makes it tougher for us to get something long term. I would infinitely prefer a permanent job with benefits. I don't have to explain my resume to computer agencies, but most HR people don't have a clue about how technical contractors are used.

Good god do they live in the basement of their friends? The last time I looked it was 250 a week or something like that.

He does a lot of honeydo work in the summer that would never get done otherwise. Spends more time with the dogs. He doesn't look for work- but it could only be temporary anyway. Other people in his company do the same thing. He couldn't do it if he wasn't married.

Besides, I've never seen any unemployment that provides for more than bare subsistence.

and its equivalent to an $8 an hour job. So the guy who drives the bus is getting minimum wage or less. His wife is supporting them.

we have the "fuck 'em, let 'em starve in the streets" assholes who are also disturbed at how much crime there is and how horrible it is to have all those "bums" on the streets.

I've seen what I talked about -- prove that it's mostly lies.

It is not that these cases do not exist, it is that they are used to push the lie that it is significant.

I'm sure that, somewhere in America there was an overweight black woman with 9 kids that drove a new Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her check. The lie is that this was typical and made up a significant portion of the welfare budget.

An example I personally witnessed was in 1999 was when the state of California issued a "competitiveness grant" to Herbalife, a multinational corporation with annual profits of ~$1B, that was larger than the state's entire financial assistance budget, which they subsequently cut to make sure no people were getting a "free ride" at taxpayer expense.

I'm not saying they're "nice" questions, but as somebody who has to hire and fire people, knowing whether or not they have a propensity to use unemployment to the fullest extent does make a difference when it comes to making personnel decisions...

the less likely they are to get the really creative and intelligent employees. This was a clever way to force people to answer questions that they might have declined to answer in a face to face interview. It doesn't make the company look good.

Not on the executive perks and golden parachutes. Screwing former employees. Gotcha. :sarcasm:

if they know what their rights are and are willing to exercise those rights, it makes a difference?

Fuck that noise. You should have no right to ask the question in the first place, and doing so should involve serious fines.

What a ridiculous allegation!

the past 32 years.

fast food, and as a federal employee, and the question has never been put to me.

I would refuse to answer if it were. Then I would do everything I could to get an investigation opened into that company's worker's compensation program.

jobs in the last 40 years, but I have looked at my two son's and they are always asked the unemployment question.................

none of them.

Edit: This was for a job with a staffing agency so I guess I can see why they would have more of a stake in it than other kinds of employers. But I was applying for a permanent tech job at that agency.

:shrug:

When I was out there, our unions weren't very strong and even when I applied for a CWA union job, those (or very similar) questions were there.

I'd focus on the people, my friend, and not on the ap -- it's mostly likely generated somewhere else.

/oops

There were a bunch of things I had to sign on the application and I wasn't terribly happy about that either.

I have never belonged to a union. I feel as though employees have practically no rights at all. And whatever rights we do have, we sign them away when we walk in the door. For even the simplest contract assignments (some that last 5 weeks) I have to sign a mountain of documents. The employer must be protected from little old me.

One person at the Department of Workforce Development said "Wisconsin is a "can do" state. The employer can do anything they want."

:)

O8)

horror - they can fire you for any reason whatsoever unless it discrimination. They don't have to have a reason.

when they are desperate and have no choice. Even though I can always pass one, I refused to take drug tests for 20 years, now I'll submit to it so I can feed the hounds.

Emplyers across the board LOVE a bad job market, where there are more people looking for work than there are jobs. It makes it that much easier to expect more work for the same pay, fire at will, deny compensation, and in general treat their current workers like shit.

That's happening more and more these days, because employers as a group know they can get away with it.

And it BEGAN with drug testing. We need a federal law stipulating that the only workers who can be tested fo drugs are those working with money or those who are responsible for the safety of others (whether driving a truck or a forklift). We also need a law requiring a compensation claim to be filed for every workplace injury requiring medical attention of any kind.

Oh, and we need to get rid of at-will employment.

and outlawing "right-to-work".

Drug testing should only be an after-the-fact tool, subject to the rules of prosecution.

I'm sure we could come up with a much longer list, but it all comes down to the equitable sharing of power.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861

:woohoo: :eyes:

:rofl:

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:eyes:

They may be legal, but they are not legitimate questions, since they have no bearing on how well a candidate might perform his job.

They are rude, intrusive and demeaning.

I have never collected unemployment in my 20 years in the workforce, nor have I been unemployed longer than a week, but there are legitimate reasons for collecting unemployment INSURANCE, and it really shouldn't be used against people when seeking future employment.

How many kids might go without meals because their parent was afraid to collect unemployment due to the possible repercussions later on.

Geezus, OMC, for a guy who has supposedly been through so much, you don't seem to have a humanistic or empathetic bone in your body.

:puke:

It all started with Reagan when he busted the unions. Bush finished the job by leaving the borders wide open and bringing in HB1v workers. If you are over 50.. forgetaboutit. Companies want cheap slave labor, weekends, holidays and no benefits. And if you dont like it.. theres 10 applications. Thats just the way they like it. It's going to stop when Obama get elected.

the will of the corporations to discriminate against people in their own age group. That HR lady who is 61- she knows damn well that if she loses this job that she has had for 20 years it is going to be impossible for her to find another one. But if they tell her to screen out certain types of people, i.e., older workers, she has to do it. Or she will lose the job she has.

At my very first job I remember my boss telling the HR person over his shoulder, "Be sure and interview a few minorities". What was left unsaid was "But don't hire any".

I don't know how electing Obama as president is going to stop discrimination.

You are exactly correct. Treat your fellow Americans like shit.. or you get the ax next. Hitler's Brownshirts would be proud. And then, after all this abuse.. the DEMS were afraid to stand up to Bush and they gave him $850 Billion to flush down the toilet (adding insult to injury). It's all coming to an end.... the banks are going to crash no matter what.. under the weight of Quadrillions of dollars in Credit Default swaps. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.. as JFK wanted to do. We can re-build from the ashes.

"Have you ever collected unemployment compensation?"


"Why have you been unemployed for so long"

How about, "Because the job market really sucks, DUMBASS," or

"Because we're in a recession, DUMBASS." :puke: