The Method of Madness

Discriminating against the unemployed. Since when did this make sense?

Apparently it does to some people. The Huffington Post featured an article on a company who noted that the unemployed need not apply in their requisition. This sparked a fairly heated debate on there and several reactions across the blogosphere, and this is what I’ve gleaned:

1. Most recruiters are morally sensible enough to know that not hiring someone based on employment status is dispicable;
2. Those that do justify it are douches and tools of the highest order;
3. Somehow, this all has to do with something financial (wee ha, huge surprise);
4. Somehow, this will lead to a disparate impact case. I would hate to be that hiring manager.

I can’t wrap my head around this at all. Maybe it’s because I’m not a recruiter – or maybe I’m just not this stupid – but what does employment status say about a person, especially when so many are unemployed right now? This is infuriating, depressing, and just plain pathetic all in one. It’s maddening to know that there are recruiters out there who would literally not even look at my qualifications because I was laid off. Are you saying the only talent worth employing is the kind worth stealing?

There are those recruiters that tow the line of “Well, it’s what my client wanted, and it’s not discriminatory so…” This line of thinking didn’t work in Nuremberg, and it’s a boat of bullshit here too. Recruiters, have the common (and ethical) sense to tell your client that disqualifying unemployed people is probably a very bad idea. Do you want to be that company or that recruiter? You reap what you sow, folks. If you aren’t willing to help people, and choose to hide behind policies and bureaucracy, don’t tweet your tears when you’re unemployed and nobody wants to help you.

Thank you to the recruiters, hiring managers, and others who understand that for many of us, unemployment wasn’t a choice or something that came about due to bad performance. It’s good to know that there are plenty of good people out there who are willing to help those in their time of need.

There’s something about social media that irritates me.

Is it really always on?

Perhaps what I mean can best be illustrated with this example: my boyfriend gets mad at me if I don’t answer my cell phone. He will call once, twice, as many times until I pick up with an exasperated “What?”, to which he replies with an equally exasperated “Hello?” My point is that because I have a cell phone, he felt I should be available at all times. Several harsh words and a stern tone later, my boyfriend now understands that just because I’m mobile doesn’t mean I’m available all the time. Do people realize this with social media?

The Internet world is all about speed, and indeed, when a customer makes a complaint online you want to address it with due course and quickness. But does this mean you need to have someone stalking the corporate Twitter feed at 3 AM? I don’t think so. The other facet to social media is that it’s all about relationships, about people – and people don’t operate 24 hours a day. We all need a breather and a moment to step away to gather our energy.

While our mobility – meaning iPhones, Blackberries, etc – have enabled us to access social media on the go, I believe that this brings another layer to the “accessibility” issue. Followers, fans, and friends can all come to expect you to be “there” in an almost omnipresent fashion. Here’s another example. I had a follower on Twitter join my feed, and about four hours later I had a chance to sit down to my email and send him a ‘thank you’ DM. By then, he had already un-followed me.

While I love the fact we can access information from pretty much anywhere in the world, just because you can doesn’t translate to you should. Everyone has priorities away from their social roles and we need to respectful of that part of the relationship we have with those people. I can’t say it any plainer: give me my space!