Posted on 09/26/2011 11:29:43 AM PDT by reaganaut1
President Obama has not been particularly successful in fostering the creation of jobs. But he thinks he has found a way to pry open doors in the workplace for many of the unemployed, especially those who have been out of work for a long time.
Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.
Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”
Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just like when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
White House officials see discrimination against the unemployed as a serious problem. In a radio interview last month, Mr. Obama said such discrimination made “absolutely no sense,” especially at a time when many people, through no fault of their own, had been laid off.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would also prohibit employment agencies and Web sites from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received reports of such advertisements but does not have data to show how common they are.
Republicans and some employers criticized the White House proposal. They said that discrimination was not common and that the proposed remedy could expose employers to a barrage of lawsuits.
“We do not see a need for it,” said Michael J. Eastman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Already, Mr. Eastman said, the Civil Rights Act outlaws employment practices that have “a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think the conclusion that an employer can make from an applicant who has been unemployed for 2 years and is only now submitting an application to my business is that he really hasn't been looking for work and would probably make a very poor employee.
Extended unemployment is generally a good indicator of someone who doesn't really want to work and if given the opportunity would prefer to sit at home and collect an unemployment check.
Why do I get the feeling that you are neither an employer, nor currently an employee?
Exactly, there is a reason they have been unemployed so long. There is pleny of work out there for the non lazy.
666 minus three.
That'll be next.
You sir are correct. Discrimination is common, but I don’t mind. Ideally business owners (HR people are another story) could hire and fire whoever they want for any reason or no reason at all. Government should not be involved in the hiring practices of individual companies, nor should it be “picking winner and losers” as Cain puts it. The same goes for housing and everything else, also. It’s all part of the plan to make the Government the owner of anything and everything. If you don’t control how something is used, run, etc., which you have possession, ownership, etc. of, then it’s not really yours.
“It’s like this guy lies awake at night thinking of ways to screw the private sector. It’s one thing after the next.”
I doubt he thinks about much of anything at all. His handlers and those who fund him are the ones thinking of all the ideas, and they all get them from one source, I imagine. There’s nothing new under the sun.
Is this a story from the NYT or The Onion?
I have a term the regime could use, “No doc employment.”
You can lie (puff up) on your résumé - but not on the paperwork you fill in after they've invited you to apply. Businesses are so screwed by this Marxist/Islamist POS!
Probably because mom & pop shops of 2 or 4 people probably aren't worth suing. It's one thing to target a pocket to pick. It's another thing to make sure there is something in the pocket to pick.
Many overseas contracting companies have already gone this route. It only leaves an avenue open for contract jumpers who won't stay in any one place for long.
Thank you. I have been saying th is for years, and nobody understands. I am an engineer in that salary range, and I would be out of business in a matter of a few months, if I lost my job. Three to four hundred a week would be like putting bubble gum in the hole in the Titanic. If you are the only bread winner with a good salary, and have expenses, you are done like stick a fork in it done, if you lose your job.
This will be an absolute boon to Temp Staffing firms.
Businesses will no longer hire anyone full-time. They will hire them all as hourly temps whom they can let go on a day’s notice. Only the ones that have really proven their value will be considered for full-time employment.
This is the way it is done in Europe, since it is nigh impossible to fire anybody once they are on your payroll.
What a wonderful idea. Let's put even MORE business's out of business. That'll teach them and get this economy rolling!
I know, I’ve been there - more times than I care to count. I’ve seen companies fail, plants close, jobs move to Mumbai as well as generaly layoffs.
I wish I had the forsight to have gone into something else; or started working as a Civil Servant making half of what I’ve made. I’d be far, far better off today if I had; as is, I’m gonna die like a work horse; with my collar on.
The idea that an engineer can even dream of taking a vacation on $346/wk is a pipe dream; if we suddenly turned off the electricity and gas, refused to eat, parked the car, gave up our medications and never got out of bed; this wouldn’t pay half of my mortgage, let alone pay my family expenses.
Some people haven’t got a CLUE as to what they are babbling about. When you earn $70K/yr, your family budget easily consumes a majority of that - if your income goes away; you will burn through your savings and retirement until you can find a job. The rule of thumb for engineers is that it takes 1 month of looking for work, for each $10K you have earned previously. $70K means 7 months of applying and interviews.
The government has no business creating the unemployed as a “protected” class. But there is a difference between having a company policy that no unemployed need apply and choosing a employed candidate over a unemployed candidate. If a company is trying to fill a slot with a hard to find tech skill set it is cutting its legs off by having a no unemployed need apply policy.They will never see the resume. The worst that will happen is they will have to interview a unemployed person and the interview will confirm he is not employable. Same applies in trying to fill a sales slot and not interviewing a laid off supersalesman whose company went out of biz which is quite common nowadays. A company that has a no unemployed need apply basically is limiting its pool of potential
opportunities for fear of having to read a resume from such a person. Quite honestly, I would fire a human resources manager if they were that lazy and bureaucratically inflexible. Having said that, the government has no business legislating against my HR manager’s stupidity.
This is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon the only people who aren’t protected are white men with jobs. Oh wait, that IS where we are.
0’s plan will kill any chance of any hiring at all!
Speaking as a business owner there are valid reasons for using care in hiring long time unemployed people.
People who haven’t been working for a long time get used to sleeping late and not working with others. They usually also haven’t kept up with technology or other industry changes.
I don’t care if they are delivering pizza, but someone who hasn’t done anything for a long time is suspect.
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.