Discrimination against the unemployed

By: 60 Minutes Overtime Staff
Topics: Overtime Original

They discovered it by accident. When Scott Pelley and his team of producers set out to profile Joe Carbone and his Platform to Employment program, they started hearing similar comments from people who are out of work: if you've been unemployed for a year or more, some companies won't even give you an interview.

Although it's not hard to find job ads that say "must be currently employed," Pelley's producer Henry Schuster says that bias against the jobless can often be insidious. "Some of these people refer to it as 'the silent no,'" said Schuster. "But there's also the pretty overt 'we don't want you.'"

Associate producer Rachael Kun spent nearly six months following the progress of a group of jobless men and women in Connecticut who were enrolled in the Platform for Employment program. "There's obviously a stigma," said Kun. "Employers tend to believe that it's the individual's fault if he can't find a job."

There is currently a bill pending in Congress that would protect the rights of the unemployed. (You can read more about that bill and its sponsors here.) What do you think? Should there be a law against this kind of discrimination? Or is it a reasonable way for employers to choose the best candidate for a job?

47 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 47 Comments


by paul1701s February 25, 2012 7:45 PM EST: While ugly and unfortunate, I am convinced this is the new way companies discriminate based on age. Many companies do not like to hire individuals who may fall into "protected" labor classes for fear of litigation down the road. I've seen this unwritten (and deniable) discrimination first hand over the years in the financial sector. As a manager I was questioned years ago when I hired someone over 50. Now as someone over 50 I see this again first hand. It is the older worker who may not have the new skills nor sufficient experience with the new skills that are in demand. And for that reason they get 'locked out' of potential opportunities even if they have transferable applicable skills.; Reply to this comment


by unemployed2012 February 25, 2012 3:11 PM EST: I am 48 and unemployed.Sick and tired of this vicious cycle. Tired of applying everywhere, practicing interview, and rejection letter. Wish I'm dead and be done with this world. Adios.; Reply to this comment


by Gypsyblood79 February 25, 2012 9:12 AM EST: Since 1972 when I turned 16, I've faced discrimination as "no experience" even when applying at a fast food restaurant(to flip a hamburger-you need "experience"?!?), and it continues to this day. There's no government bill or legislation that can or will prohibit discrimination that can prove such a case. Yes, discrimination is against the law, but you must be able to prove it first. It is sad when companies do post "must be currently employed" to be against the unemployed. In the same sense, those very companies, in my opinion, would wind up hurting themselves in the long run when nobody is able to buy anything due to lengthily unemployment. Yes, there should be a law against this type of employment practice-enforcing it is one thing-proving it another. Companies have their choices based on what they want to accomplish in a free market enterprise to make a profit.; Reply to this comment


by UnemployedRising February 24, 2012 10:17 AM EST: Employers have every right to select for hire the most qualified applicant who applies for a job opening. There are bona fide cases where an applicant who is currently working is the most qualified, but this can't ALWAYS be the case. Turning away job applicants solely on the grounds of their employment status is unfair, discriminatory, bad HR practice, bad for the economy, and must be prohibited under law.

We're of the view that job seekers also need be proactive in helping to fix the problem of discrimination against the unemployed. The next time you apply for a job and then a recruiter asks you, "Are you currently working?" consider asking immediately "Why do you ask?" and then document their answer.; Reply to this comment


by angelhrt17 February 23, 2012 12:43 PM EST: As someone who has been unemployed since October 1, 2010, I believe this type of discrimination cannot be regulated. All employers with this mentality have to do, is just not overtly say that you "must be currently employed"...and then weed through resumes to exclude those people who are unemployed. It would be as simple as that! Regulations for this type of discrimination would be a waste and impossible to prove.; Reply to this comment


by guyintheback February 22, 2012 9:45 PM EST: I'm 31, with a BSEE & MBA, who worked 10 years for a single company. Next month will be 10 months without work. I work in defense, and have seen the biggest of companies in the field put these 'must be currently employed' requirements in their openings. I agree it's discrimination. But that also does matter, because they can do the same things behind closed doors without anyone knowing the wiser. I just take these statements as a company putting a big banner over their front door that says "Ethics Probably Not Important Here"

Here is the big thing that irks me. There is among some an unspoken acknowledgement that someone losing a job or getting laid off directly implies that person was not good at their job or unproductive. That is patently false. All companies are not good or even ethical. I lost my job because my company was too focused on a single product line, and sales and contracts plummeted due to circumstances no one could have predicted. But with no other products, what is there to work on? So many people, 50% of a 700 person workforce, were let go 40 or 50 at a time, every 3-4 months, in a direct attempt to circumvent WARN Act requirements. People doing the work, with no connection to the business aspects, are the ones who get let go. The ones who already had retirements were let go. But also people like me, who were (quote) "young enough to start over" because I was single, no kids, and could relocate. Because of sick family I have chosen to stay close to them, in a city were an auto supplier plant closed, putting 200-300 BSEE's on the unemployed line and making it extremely difficult to find a job locally. But that's my choice, and it looks like I'm going to be penalized for not abandoning my family while they are in the hospital.

I was most likely to succeed in my high school class, full-time worked while a full time student to get my degrees and become the first in my family to ever graduate with a 4 year degree. I work my tail off, but the people who do the right things are always the ones who get the pointy end of the stick.

Sometimes a person gets laid off just to make the layoff stand up to legal challenge. If a company lays off all 50yo men, they could be sued for discrimination. So throwing a few young people in keeps the legal challenges at bay.

What does people shifting around the country for employment do to political landscapes? Do states become more obsolete as laws migrate nearer to each other as people move around? What does it do to personal loyalty? I happen to love my home state, but I'm being forced to give that up. I really worry about America's future and I have a hard time believing this is a country worth fighting to change. Has anyone stopped to wonder if our government really does in fact accurately reflect the majority of the people?; Reply to this comment


by obbop February 21, 2012 10:56 AM EST: Gatta' job you bums.

Or are you only applying for the "Jobs Americans will not do" so the mega-millions" of illegal aliens within the USA are filling those positions?

And you MUST leave openings for the continual million or so legal immigrants allowed in yearly along with the ever-increasing number of H-1B and other job-related visa holders Congress uses to assist their corporate USA masters to enter the USA.

Just OBEY you complainers.

So what if the "Greatest Generation" did not confront the various barriers to employment within the USA as you do today.

All is well.

All is proper and as it should be!!!

Our masters at the apex of the socio-economic pyramid and corporate USA and other such entities are doing very well.

Just OBEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prove your patriotism.

OBEY.; Reply to this comment


by robintoledo February 21, 2012 8:41 AM EST: I have hit the three mark of unemployment. I have had only a hand full of interviews and no offer of employment. My experience exceeds over 20 years of professional service. I'm beginning to think that a lot of hiring managers are nimrods.; Reply to this comment


by unemployed1andhalf February 21, 2012 1:59 AM EST: I just finally started working but as temp to perm and I think I was never called back for reasons mentioned. Not right as highly educated, experience and resume that is so impressive I can't believe I did all of it.. There should be a law. All I am going to say and I am not the only one that has been in this situation that feels the same.; Reply to this comment


by BeenUnicrued February 21, 2012 12:02 AM EST: People won't be getting jobs while there are discriminatory tests out there, red flagging people as "unhireable". http://www.change.org/petitions/us-congress-ban-the-use-of-unicrukronos-and-all-personality-tests-for-employment; Reply to this comment

See all 47 Comments

Popular Now in 60 Minutes Overtime

Follow 60 Minutes Overtime

Most Popular on CBS News

Stories More »

Videos More »

America's #1 News Program, Now on your iPad Download Now »

Recently on 60 Minutes

Dropping out: Is college worth the cost?
Students with promising ideas are paid $100,000 to drop out of college and become entrepreneurs in a controversial program founded by billionaire Peter Thiel. Morley Safer reports.
Hard cases: Investigating rare & tough diseases
Dr. William Gahl is one of the last, best hopes for people suffering from rare, debilitating, and undiagnosed medical conditions. Lara Logan reports.
Roger Waters rebuilds Pink Floyd's "The Wall"
Roger Waters, the creative force behind Pink Floyd's legendary album "The Wall," is performing the rock opera to sold-out stadiums around the world. Steve Kroft reports.
Final resting place: Cemeteries lack oversight
At some cemeteries, graves were desecrated so more plots could be sold. Is enough being done to protect bereaved families? Anderson Cooper reports.

60 Minutes on Facebook

Discrimination against the unemployed

Report offensive content:

E-mail this comment to a friend.

Follow 60 Minutes Overtime

CBS This Morning iPad App