Skip to comments.Obama Proposes Adding ‘Unemployed’ to Protected Status
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. Obamas 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 individuals status as unemployed.
Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just like when an employer discriminates on the basis of a persons 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. Obamas 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 ...
Unfortunately this is often untrue. We look and hundreds of resumes weekly and if someone has not worked for the last 12+ months they are generally not considered for the open position. Our experience is that people who have been unemployed for an extended period, over 18 months, are not as employable. Their job and life skills have eroded, this is undeniable.
The extended UE benefits programs have been a disaster. Dictated and financed by the Feds, implemented by the states, they have provided a false sense of security. I cannot tell you the number of jobs offered that people have turned down because it will “disrupt their benefits”.
90 days of UE benefits max, then welfare if you cannot get a job. At least we can call it what it truly is.
You have not yet seen the mass business exoduous that is coming out of the USA. Think job outsourcing has been a problem in the past? HaHA just wait until this guy has his way with us....................
An essay in the WSJ about a week ago discussed this. It was singled out as an example of how truly stupid the man is.
Let me tell you. I watched an American company’s IT department lay off two dozen employees (altogether) in two consecutive years, every one of them over 45, all of them U.S. born or naturalized citizens, not one of them an Indian with an H1B or a green card. The jobs went bye bye to India.
No one had sued, and if they had chosen to, the company would have dragged them through courts for years as they had done to a Filipina woman, who had a solid discrimination case, including witnesses to a statement made by the CEO himself, and who eventually prevailed, but any payment (if she ever collected, of which I am not certain) would have gone to pay off her attorneys.
The first sentence...
President Obama has not been particularly successful in fostering the creation of jobs.
And then later in the article...
Mr. Gohmert said the proposal, if passed, would encourage litigation by sending a message to millions of Americans: If youre unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and youre 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.
This will help trial lawyers who are not having enough work, Mr. Gohmert said.
Of course, nothing in those two excerpts is debatable. Still, it's a bit surprising to see in the Times. If Obama is losing the support of the Gray Lady, he may be in deeper trouble than we think.
I also noticed the first example of snarkiness you gave.
No it isn't. The vast majority of those on long term unemployment are lazy or unskilled and unhireable. They call in sick, come in late, and look for any excuse to fake an injury and go on workmans comp.
There has been many studies on the subject and the numbers don't lie.
It is just like those with bad credit being charged more for home and auto insurance, they on average turn in a ton of claims and engage in the majority of fraud cases.
OTOH, if it does pass, when we throw his ass out, we can say were protecting him.
OTOH, if it does pass, when we throw his ass out, we can say we're protecting him.
you forgot those who sue their employeers. If you are unemployeed there is a chance you previously sued your employer for some reason. How much of the layoffs in 2008 were a way to clean house from the deadweights?
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.
Directive 10-289, anyone?
OK, how about if they are registered DEMOCRATS?
This moron won’t be happy until every business in the country closes its doors permanently.
Just go around applying for work and when you are turned down simply file a lawsuit. Then settle out of court, rinse and repeat.
This idea is brilliant! Just think of the enormous job growth in the categories of trial lawyers, paralegals, judges and law clerks! I bow before Obama’s superior intellect!
This would make me want to hire someone. Sure. I could get sued just be interviewing prospective employees? Are they nuts?
So now wanting to rid the nation of unemployment could be in the same category as ethnic cleansing?
It would take several decades of solid conservative rule to undo all the crap this guy is doing
HR officers are not the most logical.
The view is if you don’t have a job, you are a loser. In other words it is better to quit a job rather than be laid off.
That is a bad sign to employers. It means you are desperate.
I REFUSE to hire anybody that is a liberal/socialist/marxist/obama boot licker.
Wanna job? Good luck!
Everything that occurs anywhere at any time is scrutinzed for opportunistic use by the O reelection team.
Not in this economy. I’d rather have someone who will work.
so the hard working paying taxes , white ,normal, Christian male will , or is the only one who is not protected.
hell why not just make the law to discriminate them and have done with it , instead of this protective crap
Maybe his next advise will be to have the Poor sue the rich and take this spread the wealth around to the next level. Each of us can sue a person that has more money than we do and collect damages that will make us equal.....
This is bad, but what I really liked about the proposal was that anyone over 50 (I think it was 50, might have been 55) that gets hired in at a lower wage than what they were let go at the state would use the unemployment insurance to make up the difference in their wages.
As a business owner does that mean I can hire an old guy who is laid off with a PhD, pay him minimum wage, and let the state pick up the rest of his/her salary?? Hell I could hire 5 guys for the same price as one younger one!! /s
white straight normal, hard working white males.
honestly I don’t see why they can’;t get rid of these special protected classes and just say discrimination is alright against what I just wrote.
Actually, a lot of business are using temps only - forever. The trial lawyers make it too hard to fire anyone, so making people permanent isn't worth it.
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.