Posted on 09/21/2011 3:17:24 PM PDT by paltz
The push from federal lawmakers to protect the unemployed from discrimination has heated up considerably since Congressman Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, went to the the floor of the House last week and highlighted a portion of President Barack Obama's jobs bill that prohibits employers from discriminating against potential employees as a result of one's unemployed status.
"We are adding in this bill a new protected class called 'unemployed.' Titled on page 129 prohibition of discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual's status as unemployed and it says right here in the findings, '...that we find the denial of unemployment opportunities to individuals because of their status as unemployed is discriminatory and burdens commerce,'" Congressman Gohmert said in disbelief.
He then added, "So the good news is if you're unemployed and you go and apply for a job and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able, to file a claim, because you got discriminated against, because you were unemployed."
Democrats, seeing the high unemployment numbers working against the president as well as their own political survival, continue to push the idea that the unemployed are constantly discriminated against by the private sector and need protection from the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“I don’t think the [Obama Jobs] bill created [the unemployed.] I think the Bush tax cuts created it. There’s a class of unemployed people, but obviously the bill did not create the class,” Congressman Danny Davis, Illinois Democrat, told me on Tuesday evening.
Don’t you just love that? The Bush tax cuts created the current unemployment. Sometimes I think being a democrat must be a truly wonderful thing. You are free to wonder around completely divorced from reality. You can have you’re own world where anything is possible.
So employers will now have to hire the unemployed ahead of everyone else to avoid lawsuits and Federal sanctions. That will force either less hiring or the hiring of less than optimal employees which will detract from the employer’s bottom line which will cause him to hire fewer employees in the future or will cause him to go out of business. It all adds up to a higher unemployment rate and businesses refusing to even “see” job applications from unemployed people thus reducing their opportunities to get re-employed. That’s what has happened to Negros. Many employers make sure they do not even see their applications because they know it will be difficult and/or expensive to fire them if it becomes necessary. In at least some job categories women’s protected status has the same effect.My own occupation has become whiter and manlier over the last 5 years, at least, because of these things. Currently there seems to be no problem with hiring currently unemployed people. That would change, too.
The 'real' good news is that almost every 'grievance' lawyers will be busy suing the US Military for 'discrimination' against homosexuals. Don't ask, don't tell is over - the new policy is 'Sue if you're Gay and did NOT get YOUR promotion'... I mean there's only so many lawyers, right?
A classic case of “There oughta be a law!” It’s seems inherently unfair to everybody that an an employer could say “Unemployed need not apply.” That’s just wrong! So let’s pass that law. Nobody EVER looks at unintended consequences.
Whoop, there it is. This should bring hiring to a screeching halt.
I wouldn’t even grant an interview to someone who is unemployed if my not hiring them would result in my being sued.
Consider that door shut.
Employers will not bother to post jobs or just not hire in this country. It might even be safer to hire illegals, unless of course, they could utilize this litigation approach.
What will the unemployed want next? Unemployed marriages? Repeal of Don’t ask, don’t hire?
Here is the job description. AND, Don't send me any (fill in the blanks).
Human Resource departments do widely discriminate against applicants the longer they've been out of work.
Chronically unemployed are seen as tainted and shuffled to the bottom regardless of job qualification.
I understand. Believe me. I do. However, legislating an answer to the problem is not a solution, though. It’s simply makes it worse, in fact. If an employer risks being sued for firing a staffer (for whatever work related for cause reason) who is part of a protected class, why bother hiring that individual to begin with and risk the liability?
If anything, the federal government is giving less protection to those they purport to be protecting.
In this case, employers could be concerned that if they don’t hire someone who is currently out of work, they’ll be sued. So why should their pool of applicants include the unemployed if the employer risks that lawsuit(s)? Nobody’s winning anything here except the trial lawyers and the Dems they give money to, which this legislation is a pay off to.
When everyone’s a protected class, no one’s a protected class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.