People who have lost jobs or have never been hired are less qualified as a group than those who are currently working, they say. People who are out of the workforce for a significant period of time may also have fallen behind in skills.
This is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons. The first counter-argument that comes to mind is that people who have been "out of the workforce" may actually be more qualified than those in the workplace. Of course it varies between industries, but it's not uncommon for employees to become less inspired, less motivated, and less likely to pick up new skills over the years. People who are out of work would be wise to take the time to brush up on their trade and work on related projects between jobs, not only for personal gain, but to impress potential employers. I am amazed that companies legitimately believe that development and experience only happens in the workplace.
Another lingering question in my mind: why wouldn't these companies use unemployment to their advantage? They could surely offer lower salaries to out-of-work employees (who may be desperate for work) than currently-employed employees.
Not really. The goal is to hire people who get the specific job done for the least amount of money. Lots of companies pay lip service to wanting exceptional people, but they pay crap and have a horrible work environment.
For technical support in a non-technical company, yes. But for an actual tech company, where tech is the product? A company with that philosophy will produce mediocre results and lose in the market.
Certainly the trend-setting giants (MS, Google, Facebook) are seriously trying to hire the best.
> A company with that philosophy will produce mediocre results and lose in the market.
The first part of this sentence is probably correct, the second part is probably incorrect. There are millions (okay, I exaggerate: thousands) of programs out there which do not "lose in the market" despite being mediocre. One of the recipes is specialization: If the decision for a company is "no software or mediocre software" mediocre wins.
This is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons. The first counter-argument that comes to mind is that people who have been "out of the workforce" may actually be more qualified than those in the workplace. Of course it varies between industries, but it's not uncommon for employees to become less inspired, less motivated, and less likely to pick up new skills over the years. People who are out of work would be wise to take the time to brush up on their trade and work on related projects between jobs, not only for personal gain, but to impress potential employers. I am amazed that companies legitimately believe that development and experience only happens in the workplace.
Another lingering question in my mind: why wouldn't these companies use unemployment to their advantage? They could surely offer lower salaries to out-of-work employees (who may be desperate for work) than currently-employed employees.