Why It Should Be Unlawful for Companies to Ask or Answer the Re-hire Eligibility Question

The inclination is to believe the worst about the job applicant when a previous employer indicates that they are not eligible for re-hire, even when the reasons are not made clear to the inquiring employment recruiter. Unfortunately, when unpleasant circumstances under which an employment prospect parted ways with a previous employer are evident and favorable for the job candidate, their honesty would most likely be seen as bad-mouthing the previous employer. The truth is that companies might be and very likely are missing out on the very best employees in basing decisions not to hire employment candidates on a current or previous employer’s indication that they are ineligible for re-hire...

Frequently, employees who are top performers are singled out for disparate and unfair treatment because they are excellent at their jobs; for example, the excellent employee reasonably invests more time into correctly performing tasks that require more attention. Other employees complain that the employee is moving too slowly, though they all complete their tasks prior to the end of the shift...

The excellent employee not only took the time to accurately perform their tasks, a considerable portion of this time is spent correcting other employees' work; for example, the mediocres have placed considerable amounts of merchandise in the wrong place. The excellent employee straightens it all out before adding additional merchandise.

Though the excellent employee was never endeavoring to show anyone up and only wanted to do a good job, the mediocres are intimidated nonetheless, and venture to make the work environment as uncomfortable as possible for the actually exemplary employee, who may have jumped into the fire for appropriately defending themselves or addressing bullies.

This is not always the case, of course. The point, however, is that any qualified candidate stands a 50-50 chance of being a good fit for a job, regardless of how the re-hire eligibility question is answered; and because contradicting a slanderous previous employer is not typically welcomed, it should be unlawful to ask or respond to the question of whether or not an applicant to another company is eligible to be rehired. In some instances the responder on the other end of that call might be the actual villain and the individual who would otherwise be denied employment might be the saint who happens to be exceptional at the job that a recruiter is endeavoring to fill...

If asking the re-hire eligibility question does not become unlawful any time soon, however, I’m challenging all hiring managers to make a point of hiring or at least interviewing individuals who previous employers have indicated are not eligible for rehire. Ask the applicant to clarify what happened with the previous employer who indicates that they are not eligible to be re-hired, listen with an open mind, and be objective and fair in judgment...

The result could be acquiring the individual who is actually the very best candidate for the job and simultaneously disarming a malicious practice that has historically contributed to chronic and undeserved unemployment and suffering and helping other companies to realize the good in mimicking the practice.  

A Major Exclusively-for-Parents Job Site

There should be a major job site that is exclusively for parents with minor children, or one that job seekers with children and companies that hire them could join to search for and offer employment opportunities. Companies that join the website and those generally that offer flexible employment opportunities to parents with minor children should receive both incentives (tax credits, etc.) and notice/recognition...

The website that I have in mind would provide that recognition by listing participating companies on the site and the incentive of further compelling patronage of those companies for helping to resolve a major crisis - overt poverty - that affects millions of families in this country alone.

Companies and job seekers would be capable of creating profiles on the site where the companies would discuss their initiatives and employment seekers could discuss their unique situations, i.e. an employment seeker could discuss challenges that they have with childcare, etc., and a company could discuss its specific scheduling flexibility program and/or company child care center, work-from home-program, etc...

The site should also consist of a forum and blog that would share good news, i.e. member hires/promotions, member-received awards and/or those received by their children. Interviews of how the program has benefited working parents and the companies that hire them could also be posted.

...Participating companies would agree to offer scheduling flexibility (with consideration of school hours where relevant, etc.) and other programs, including those that would qualify them for government grants, and that would enable especially single parents to work without jeopardizing the safety of their children.

...Those programs would additionally offer incentives to non-custodial parents, especially those who pay child support. Those incentives could include scheduling flexibility and offerings of outsourced employment when the non-custodial parent exemplifies joint responsibility for childcare and/or for transporting children to childcare.

Non-custodial parents who pay child support should also be privileged to claim their children as dependents on their income tax returns, in addition to the custodial parent claiming the child on their taxes, and receive tax credit in proportion to whatever amount they pay in support.

Even if the actual returns are conservative, reducing tax liability for fathers doing the right thing would be helpful and fair. Non-custodial tax credit should be retroactive, in fact, and proper credit should be applied to any amounts that non-custodial parents owe to the Internal Revenue Service. 

A major exclusively-for-parents job site would perpetually serve to resolve issues that are sensitive to working parents and those seeking employment or better employment opportunities, and would accordingly help to reduce demand for public service programs and empower/better empower parents to become productive tax-paying citizens and patrons of consumer markets... 

Only Jobs That Require Specialized Skills Should Require Collegiate or Technical Degrees

It has become common-place for bachelors and even graduate degreed college graduates to fill positions that do not or should not require college degrees, while many jobs that reasonably require college and/or technical degrees or certification go unfilled. This is very likely a major contributor to unemployment and underemployment for both college grads and non-degreed/ non-certified individuals alike...

Jobs that should not necessarily require collegiate or technical degrees should drop the requirement, and companies should hire candidates based on exhibited skills, particularly when those companies provide training* for those specific jobs (*Companies that provide training to employment candidates should qualify for grants and tax and other incentives, especially when they offer certification programs in the line of paid job training)…  

Traditional college and technical school graduates should primarily make use of their college/technical school job boards when conducting employment/career searches; and collegiate/tech school employment placement specialists should primarily if not exclusively help college/tech school grads find jobs for which they have been educated.

This would help to regulate or create balance in employment stats amongst all workers or employment candidates in that those with degrees would not be in competition with those who lack a degree or a particular level of degree for jobs that should not necessarily require a degree at all.