Sunday, September 18, 2011

Long-Term Unemployed Probably Make Better New Hires

Part of the problem of job malaise in this economy is that a lot of employers are looking to fill positions with those who are currently employed. I remember reading a lot of news articles, and this New York Times article is one of many that talked about how employers are turning away people who have been unemployed for a while. Basically, the idea is that employers want to fill position with those who have most up-to-date skills because such employee would be more productive, and employers apparently generally believe unemployed would be at a disadvantage against those who are currently employed.

But hiring someone who has been unemployed and had been looking for a job for a long time may be better because such person may become a more productive and loyal employee. Why? Someone who has been unemployed will be a lot more grateful to the employer who hires that person out of probable financial desperation. Someone who is currently employed already has a pay check and probably is looking because he/she is disgruntled and burnt out at the current job. That person probably doesn't face the same dire economic desperation because however disgruntled, that person still has a steady paycheck. Once the unemployed person is hired, that person will likely work extra hours to catch up on the learning curve a lot more than the person who is so burnt out that he/she had to jump ship to another job. The unemployed person will likely go a further distance to prove he/she is worthy of that job. So the unemployed person will likely learn what's necessary for the job just as quickly if not quicker than the person who was employed. And the person who had been unemployed for a while will NEVER forget that you are the one that gave that job to break that desperation and unemployment. Which means, that person is likely to be much more loyal than the person who simply views the new job as another job.

So, wouldn't hiring someone who has been unemployed months and years (which apparently is common now) be better? Just something to ponder about, all you employers with jobs.