Refusing to Hire the Unemployed?

There's been talk on the interwebs of employers who have a policy of  rejecting candidates for employment solely on the grounds that they're currently unemployed. Some employers allegedly include in their job postings language to the effect that candidates "must be currently employed" or that "unemployed persons need not apply."

Is this a trend among employers? Hard to tell; it may be an isolated phenomenon. Is this happening primarily in the private sector, or are public sector employers imposing similar requirements? I don't know. But I think local governments, in general, tend to take a more inclusive approach to evaluating the talent pool. A local government exists to serve its community. To shut a portion of that community out of employment opportunities seems contrary to all the efforts that local governments put into the community's well-being and economic development.

The employer rationale for a "must be employed" requirement, if indeed there are many employers imposing it, is baffling. Is there a belief that someone who's unemployed must have been let go because of performance problems? That seems questionable in this age of mass layoffs in every sector. There are plenty of people who find themselves without jobs through no fault of their own.

Prompted by some members of Congress, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a meeting on this topic earlier this year.  It's not known whether any regulatory actions may ensue from this meeting. The recently proposed "American Jobs Act" contains provisions that would make it unlawful for employers to fail or refuse to consider an individual for employment because of the individual's status as unemployed.

If you have or are contemplating a "must be employed" requirement for your vacancies, please consider whether such a requirement is in the employer's or community's best interest. It may not yet be against the law to disqualify candidates whose only impediment to getting a job is ... not having a job.  But even if it's not unlawful, it sure doesn't seem very smart. Certainly some applicants are jobless for reasons that ought to keep them from being hired by you. But there are far better ways to sort out those applicants than by a blanket prohibition on considering any and all unemployed persons.