'Must be currently employed'

[Ebowed]

Is this a fair criterion for prospective employers to demand of potential workers, and if not, should it be prohibited as a form of discrimination?

[nclib]

No, it is unfair, and yes it should be prohibited.

The unemployed deserve protection from this; otherwise they can't escape the vicious circle.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, it's not fair, and no, it shouldn't be prohibited.

Better to know if an employer is HP beforehand.

[opebo]

Should be prohibited.

[Roemerista]

Of course it is acceptable to use.

I don't see how its "unfair," or why that particularly matters. While it may go against my personal interests, for being unemployed for a time, it is a fantastic means to sort through the pile of applicants. Not to mention they are less likely having to give you time to adjust to the office setting, as your skill set has been actively been at use recently.

Generally I have seen these restrictions in such a capacity. E.g., having to have been employed in a certain time frame previous to applying.

[John Dibble]

It's not fair, but I don't think it's unfair enough to be prohibited.

[Free Palestine]

No, it is unfair, and yes it should be prohibited.

The unemployed deserve protection from this; otherwise they can't escape the vicious circle.

[courts]

It's not fair, but I don't think it's unfair enough to be prohibited.

I'm not sure how you would even enforce that, honestly. People tend to just find other reasons not to hire applicants anyway. Look at the use of the term "overqualified" as a euphemism for other things.

[Simfan34]

It's not fair, but I don't think it's unfair enough to be prohibited.

I'm leaning towards this. But can anyone tell me why someone would put up such a restriction?

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's not fair, but I don't think it's unfair enough to be prohibited.

I'm leaning towards this. But can anyone tell me why someone would put up such a restriction?

     Probably because they figure that if you are unemployed then it's your fault for being lazy, or something like that.

     Anyway, I tend to agree with the quoted posts. It's an issue, but not really the sort of thing that necessitates legal intervention. If people are that upset about it, consumers should be able to boycott such businesses as a punitive measure.

[opebo]

But can anyone tell me why someone would put up such a restriction?

     Probably because they figure that if you are unemployed then it's your fault for being lazy, or something like that.

Its really just that they want to limit the number of applicants.  Nowadays there are hundreds of applications for any job; if the process were open to the unemployed there would be thousands of applications for one position.  They simply haven't the manpower to wade through all that.

[Yelnoc]

It's not fair, but I don't think it's unfair enough to be prohibited.

I'm leaning towards this. But can anyone tell me why someone would put up such a restriction?

     Probably because they figure that if you are unemployed then it's your fault for being lazy, or something like that.

     Anyway, I tend to agree with the quoted posts. It's an issue, but not really the sort of thing that necessitates legal intervention. If people are that upset about it, consumers should be able to boycott such businesses as a punitive measure.

It isn't in the interests of the vast majority of consumers, who are employed, to spend their free time finding out which companies have those policies and then boycotting them.  Logic like that is why stuff never gets done.

[Cincinnatus]

Employers have the right to demand certain qualifications, and experience, but this doesn't fall under that idea.  If a potential employee is qualified and able to perform, his current unemployment should be irrelevant.  This doesn't mean that past employment shouldn't factor in when choosing between potential hires, but discriminating based on unemployment should be prohibited.

[J. J.]

What about saying that you must have a bachelor's degree or a high school diploma or GED.  I think it is the same difference.

[nclib]

What about saying that you must have a bachelor's degree or a high school diploma or GED.  I think it is the same difference.

Once you've gotten a bachelor's degree, etc., you can't lose it. You can become unemployed due to no fault of your own.

[© tweed]

does this most often mean 'must have a comparable job' or just you have to be employed in any capacity, ie, at McDonalds?  not that anyone is going to make the ignominious downward leap so I'm speaking purely out of morbid curiosity.