No, I'm not claiming the long-term unemployed (LTUs) are entitled to a job with the government. Although that perspective has worked for us before in times of economic hardship. Like the CCC and the WPA. I'm saying I want to work, so how about you stop paying me unemployment benefits and hire me?
My unemployment benefits are due to run out completely in 3 months when I hit 99 weeks. Benefits after 26 weeks, as I understand it, are paid by the federal government and not state governments. I find it bewildering that the feds would rather pay me unemployment than hire me. I've applied for over 100 federal jobs in the last year and a half: I was qualified for all, well-qualified for most, and I was so well-qualified or overqualified for some that I find it hard to believe that there were others who were more qualified who applied for that same job.
What gives?
I have an undergraduate in business administration with a high GPA, and a useful graduate degree with a high GPA. I have years of varied experience that would translate easily and well to a government job, which I know for a fact because I actually was employed by a state government for a while. I have outstanding references, and in every job I've ever had I've kicked ass. I've won national awards in two fields. I've been commended by management. I've pulled off miracles that left other departments shaking their heads.
Is it my age? I do hope not, because that's illegal. But if it is, it's ironic, since I'm a high performer with high expectations of myself and my work, and I'm a tad competitive. I'm not afraid to go toe-to-toe with anyone of any age in terms of sharpness, quickness, and stamina. Anyone who makes negative assumptions about me because of my age is not only ageist, but they're shortchanging themselves and their companies/agencies.
Is it my unemployment status? Talk about a Catch-22. With all the negative stories about how HR people screen out the unemployed, you'd hope the feds wouldn't be doing the same thing. I'm not a loser and I wasn't fired - my longterm project ended. You can't collect unemployment at all if you were let go for cause, so you arguably know more about whether I'm a poor risk if I collect unemployment than if I don't. And of course, the longer you're unemployed the worse your chances of becoming employed, which leads to...
Is it my credit rating? Employers sometimes screen using credit ratings, but I really hope it isn't happening with government, for two reasons. First, my credit is less than stellar because I don't have a job. Hello!?! You try living on one week's pay a month. Of course I can't pay all my bills on time (and there's not that many of them, either, I'm not a spendthrift.) I fully intend to pay everything back to the penny, including medical bills, when I have a job and can afford to do so. I had perfect credit until I had trouble finding work. But you can't know all that just from looking at a credit score, can you?
Second, companies who use credit history in HR decisions are doing so based on pure speculation and not any neutral, reputable scientifically or statistically-based studies. All the studies supporting this practice are funded by entities that stand to gain financially from continuing this practice. Using credit history gives great cover to people who want to make discriminatory decisions, and it shouldn't be allowed if there's no reasonable basis for doing so, reasonable being a provable connection between credit history and the thing being screened.
It amazes me how these people rationalize not paying cancer claims because "there's only a slight correlation, and causation can't be proven", but they use some questionable, self-serving study not even related to employment (ie., no causation and no correlation whatsoever) to justify using credit ratings in employment decisions.
To show you how stupid this is, my auto insurance went up even though I'd never had a claim, and they admitted to me it was due entirely to my credit rating! So they determined my premiums based on some unproven and unsubstantiated theory instead of the reality of my actual claims history. Talk about arbitrary and capricious!
You think the insurance industry supports using credit scores to determine premiums? Well, duh. They get to charge higher premiums than the state limit, without greater risk! And I used the term "arbitrary and capricious" for a reason here. If the government uses credit scores in HR hiring determinations, they are violating due process rights of applicants to be protected from arbitrary and capricious government decisions, because there is no proven connection between someone's credit score and how good an employee they are.
Here is a really sad suspicion I have, and I'm sorry to have it. Am I being blackballed? I have never been in trouble with the law. I've had a few minor traffic tickets, that's all. I'm current on my income taxes. I have a professional license that you can't keep if you're a crook. I am a total Girl Scout who believes in a nation of laws and a civil, stable society, and I always have been. I'm not only a good employee, I'm a good citizen. I'm in no way, shape, or form a security risk of any kind. Is this reluctance on the part of the feds to hire me political? Related to the fact that I volunteered for a progressive political candidate in 2003-4? Or because I've posted on dailykos since 2005? Or because I was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party and donated $500 I couldn't afford to Barack Obama (back when I had a job) so he could win the Presidency and help me finally get health insurance? (That didn't turn out so well, but that's another diary.) We know GWB embedded little neocon anti-gummint terrorists wherever he could in the Civil Service. Am I on someone's list? Are you?
These questions aside, there are good reasons why the feds should hire the LTUs first:
1. Assuming all other things are equal with the other candidates, hiring an LTU before other people both reduces the unemployment rate and the federal outlays for unemployment benefits.
2. It's entirely possible you will get better, more qualified candidates with the LTUs than with people you would normally expect to apply for that position, resulting in a win-win for the new hire, the agency, and the taxpayer.
3. Someone who has been unemployed for a long time will be very grateful to get a job, someone more fortunate might take it for granted.
4. Since the feds are going to hire someone anyway, why not choose an equally-well or better-qualified candidate and reduce the costs of unemployment at the same time?
5. The LTUs are in survival mode; other applicants who are already employed are merely looking to better their situation. They aren't at risk of being homeless, yet, anyway.
Finally, I want to work. I've completely supported myself since I was 19 years old. I put myself through college and grad school. I've never been on any kind of public assistance in my life. It boggles my mind that no one can see what a good employee I'd be, given my background, references and achievements. If I'm in this boat, where I even just got turned down by a big box retailer for a part-time job, how much more difficult is it for others who are in even worse positions? I want to work. I want to work.
It's getting really hard for me to stay positive under these circumstances. I feel like everyone's wondering what's wrong with me. I've applied to many other jobs, too, all kinds, paying all kinds of wages, every week now for the last 88 weeks. But the feds hiring well-qualified LTUs first makes so much sense that I've got to hope at least someone with the authority to do something sees this and agrees with me. By all means, though, start with the 99ers. I will probably reach that next unhappy milestone anyway before someone finally tells me, "You're hired!".