Long-Term Unemployment Worse Than A Criminal Record When It Comes To Job Placement: Survey

The Stigma Against These Types Of Job Seekers: Survey
|
Open Image Modal

A new survey has found that hiring managers and recruiters believe it is easier to place a candidate who has a job -- but who also has a criminal record -- than a person who has been unemployed for more than two years.

Bullhorn, the recruiting software company, conducted an anonymous survey of 1,500 recruiting and hiring managers last month and asked them to rate the difficulty of placing certain candidates on a scale from 1 to 5. The company found that 44 percent of respondents rated candidates who had been unemployed for two years or more as a five: meaning "very difficult" to place. Forty-three percent rated those candidates a four, which indicated "difficult" to place.

But when it came to people with non-felony criminal records, just 31 percent of hiring managers rated them as a five, and 32 percent rated them as a four.

"As you try hard to claw your way out of unemployment and you don’t succeed, you become less employable," Vinda Rao, a marketing manager with Bullhorn, told The Huffington Post. "It's completely antithetical to how we'd want it to be."

Rao said that while the criminal record versus long-term unemployment paradox was a surprising and unfortunate finding, it highlights the fact that job-seekers should seek out any strategies they can to combat the negative stereotypes that come with being out of work.

"Take on part-time jobs if you can't get a full-time job. Do volunteer work. Just do something that seems like you’ve been learning new skills and doing something with your time," Rao said. "Anything you can do as an unemployed person to calm that stereotype is in your best interest."

The results of the new survey seem, in part, to back up other findings on the stigma of unemployment.

Last month, HuffPost's Arthur Delaney wrote about research out of ULCA that showed companies think less of those who are unemployed, regardless of how briefly they've been out of work.

In one study the researchers conducted, 47 human resources professionals looked at identical resumes with only one distinguishing characteristic: the employment status of the job seeker. The "currently employed" candidate was considered more competent and more hirable than the person who had been out of a job for just a month.

Indeed, the Bullhorn survey also showed that it doesn't take long for a person to be unemployed before recruiters to consider them a challenge to place: 36 percent of respondents said that a candidate could only be out of work for six months to a year before finding them a job would become difficult.

An estimated 1.8 million people have been out of a job for more than 99 weeks, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but as Forbes points out, those numbers only include people who reported looking for work in the last four weeks, so the actual numbers could be much higher.

Still, one aspect of heartening news came out of Bullhorn's survey: According to Rao, a majority of the survey respondents -- 62 percent -- said that they'd have an easier time placing a 55-year-old with a steady job history than someone aged 30 who had bounced around a lot. Thirty-nine percent of hiring managers said the factor most negatively affecting those looking for work is a history of job-hopping, or leaving a company before a year.

"Everybody can get away with that once because we all find ourselves in the wrong fit," Rao said. "But if you do it over and over again, it says you're either not committed to staying somewhere long term, or you're in it for a promotion or higher pay grade and using it as a ladder. No one wants to extend the resources to train you if they can't count on your being a dedicated employee."

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

10 Ways The U.S. Is Getting Worse For Most Americans
Workers are not reaping the gains of their extra productivity.(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
Worker productivity grew 11 times more quickly than worker pay between 1979 and 2011: While worker productivity rose 69 percent, median hourly compensation rose just 6.5 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute.[Chart credit: Economic Policy Institute] (credit:Economic Policy Institute)
CEO pay has skyrocketed.(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
Maybe it's time to consider your CEO's massive pay package as a cut out of your own paycheck. CEO pay is more than 200 times that of a typical worker, up from 30 times that of a typical worker in the late 1970s, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (credit:AP)
There aren't enough jobs.(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
At its current rate of job creation, the U.S. will not return to its pre-recession unemployment rate of around 5 percent before 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (credit:AP)
Job growth was slow even before the recession.(04 of10)
Open Image Modal
From the Economic Policy Institute: "The business cycle from 2000-2007 is the weakest full business cycle on record for job creation, due to the fact that demand was insufficient to drive overall GDP gains that were robust enough to generate strong job growth."It appears that the middle class squeeze has hurt job creation and economic growth. (credit:AP)
We are poorer than we could be.(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
Households in the middle fifth of income distribution would have been making $18,897 more per year as of 2007 if their incomes had grown as quickly as overall average incomes between 1979 and 2007, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (The sizable income growth for top earners since 1979 skewed the overall average.) (credit:The Huffington Post)
The rich have captured most income growth.(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
The top one percent captured 60 percent of total income growth between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom 90 percent was left with just 9 percent of the total, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the top one percent's incomes rose 241 percent, in contrast to 11 percent growth for the bottom fifth and 19 percent growth for the middle fifth.[Chart credit: Economic Policy Institute] (credit:Economic Policy Institute)
Wages have grown more quickly for the rich.(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
Wages for the top one percent spiked 131 percent between 1979 and 2010, while wages for the bottom 90 percent of workers rose just 15 percent over that same period, according to the Economic Policy Institute.[Chart credit: Economic Policy Institute] (credit:Economic Policy Institute)
The poorest Americans are earning less than in 1979.(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
Americans in the bottom tenth of the wage distribution earned less last year than the lowest earners did in 1979, accounting for inflation, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, the real wages of the median worker rose only 6 percent between 1979 and 2011. (credit:Economic Policy Institute)
The American Dream is eroding.(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
"Families headed by early baby boomers (born between 1945-1954) are the last generation (on average) to achieve higher living standards than the one that preceded them," the Economic Policy Institute says. Among families with incomes below $28,000 in 1994, less than 1 percent made it to the top fifth of incomes 10 years later, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (credit:AP)
This has been a lost decade.(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
On average, hourly pay has not grown at all since 2002 for workers with a college degree or with only a high school degree, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Wages have not grown for college graduates in nearly every occupation, and college graduates in the 70th income percentile or lower have had stagnant or falling wages since 2000.[Chart credit: Economic Policy Institute] (credit:Economic Policy Institute)