What's the Catch

Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

-Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Here’s a new one for you. We all know that employers, in their job postings, will put qualifications like specific experience, specific education, sometimes “experience in lieu of education,” and catch phrases like, “team player, go-getter,” and “motivated individual.” Now the newest must-have qualification showing up on job postings is, “currently employed.” Companies, fearing that a worker’s skills will deteriorate while off the job, only want people who are working to apply for the jobs they post. With the unemployment rate in California at 11.7 percent as of October, that means that these employers are discriminating against over 2 million people. The 2011 job hunting Catch-22; if you want a job you have to have a job.

And what does that say about the applicants? That while employed, they are browsing Monster.com for another job? What’s to stop them from doing the same thing after they get hired by Mr. Must-Be-Working-To-Work-Here? And at the next place, and the next place, and so on?

In New Jersey it is illegal to post a job ad that requires applicants be currently employed. There are movements in other states to make it illegal there too. In California, Assemblyman Michael Allen, a Democrat from Santa Rosa is so upset he is going to introduce legislation that parrots the New Jersey law; but not until January when the legislature comes back from Christmas break. (Meanwhile, the Christmas break of the unemployed will be considerably longer.)

Until then, people who are unemployed cannot apply for some jobs, but if they are employed then they can apply for those jobs, but they wouldn’t need to apply for jobs because they have jobs, but since they have jobs they can apply for those jobs. Can you hear Yossarian whistling?

I suppose Mr. Allen is sincere in his attempt to protect the unemployed job seeker, but as far as I’m concerned, he needn’t bother. If it becomes against the law to “post” the requirement that an applicant be employed, the employers will just leave that out of their postings. Then behind the closed doors of their HR departments, they would still be free to make their hiring decisions in any manner that they fancy. Not working, not considered. Is that different than round-filing a person’s application because of race, sex, age, or religious belief?

I haven’t configured a router, switch, or server in five months but if you sit me down in front of one today I’d still be able to do it. In a year? Probably. In five years? Who knows? Who knows how to know? Is there some kind of algorithm out there that you can plug in the months out of work and get a chart that tracks the degradation of skills? Probably. Is it accurate? It doesn’t have to be. HR managers just have to believe it is. Maybe I should write a program that does that. If I put some bright colors in the graphs, most managers and vice presidents I've met would just about pee their pants to look at them.

I’d laugh but people might think I was as crazy as a B-25 pilot who wants to continue to fly missions.