Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Proposes Adding ‘Unemployed’ to Protected Status
New York Times ^ | September 26, 2011 | ROBERT PEAR

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 0bamathewaiver; alohabarryyourefired; bhofascism; bhosocialism; china; corporations; corruption; democrats; fraud; globalism; impeachthesob; liberalfascism; maobama; nobama2012; obama; socialism; socialistdemocrats; typicalbarackperson; unemployed; unemployment; yourefiredbarry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: dsthompson
Unfortunately, refusing to hire or even just interview someone who has been out of work for an extended period of time, in the economy, is as stupid, short sighted and ignorant as is refusing to do so because of their color or religion, etc.

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.

schu

51 posted on 09/26/2011 12:18:10 PM PDT by schu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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....................


52 posted on 09/26/2011 12:18:21 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

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.


53 posted on 09/26/2011 12:18:28 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


54 posted on 09/26/2011 12:19:16 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Do I detect a little snarkiness directed at Obama from the New York Times?

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 you’re unemployed and you go to 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.”

“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.

55 posted on 09/26/2011 12:20:15 PM PDT by southernnorthcarolina ("Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." -- Aesop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

I also noticed the first example of snarkiness you gave.


56 posted on 09/26/2011 12:22:11 PM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dsthompson
“Unfortunately, refusing to hire or even just interview someone who has been out of work for an extended period of time, in the economy, is as stupid, short sighted and ignorant as is refusing to do so because of their color or religion, etc.”

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.

57 posted on 09/26/2011 12:22:25 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
On one hand the idea is a screwed up as a soup sandwich.

OTOH, if it does pass, when we throw his ass out, we can say were protecting him.

58 posted on 09/26/2011 12:23:37 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
On one hand the idea is a screwed up as a soup sandwich.

OTOH, if it does pass, when we throw his ass out, we can say we're protecting him.

59 posted on 09/26/2011 12:24:09 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

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?


60 posted on 09/26/2011 12:26:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dsthompson
Unfortunately, refusing to hire or even just interview someone who has been out of work for an extended period of time, in the economy, is as stupid, short sighted and ignorant as is refusing to do so because of their color or religion, etc.

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?

61 posted on 09/26/2011 12:28:26 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Exactly, there is a reason they have been unemployed so long. There is pleny of work out there for the non lazy.


62 posted on 09/26/2011 12:29:39 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

666 minus three.


63 posted on 09/26/2011 12:31:14 PM PDT by COUNTrecount (Barry...above his poi grade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Are businesses now prohibited from asking for a résumé?

That'll be next.

64 posted on 09/26/2011 12:34:40 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

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.


65 posted on 09/26/2011 12:35:58 PM PDT by JDW11235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

“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.


66 posted on 09/26/2011 12:37:24 PM PDT by JDW11235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Is this a story from the NYT or The Onion?


67 posted on 09/26/2011 12:39:25 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

I have a term the regime could use, “No doc employment.”


68 posted on 09/26/2011 12:40:15 PM PDT by corlorde (NH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Are businesses now prohibited from asking for a résumé?

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!

69 posted on 09/26/2011 12:43:47 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why did they choose the number 15? What’s the significance of this?

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.

70 posted on 09/26/2011 12:44:55 PM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
No Business is going to risk interviewing ANY unemployed person for any position.

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.

71 posted on 09/26/2011 12:46:47 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

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.


72 posted on 09/26/2011 12:53:55 PM PDT by Kratos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Thank you. I have been saying this 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.
73 posted on 09/26/2011 12:55:19 PM PDT by Kratos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


74 posted on 09/26/2011 1:04:02 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations,"

What a wonderful idea. Let's put even MORE business's out of business. That'll teach them and get this economy rolling!

75 posted on 09/26/2011 1:05:07 PM PDT by NoGrayZone ("Islamophobia: The irrational fear of being beheaded." Andrew Klavan of PJTV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kratos

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.


76 posted on 09/26/2011 1:06:43 PM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

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.


77 posted on 09/26/2011 1:07:43 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


78 posted on 09/26/2011 1:10:56 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Brilliant!

0’s plan will kill any chance of any hiring at all!

79 posted on 09/26/2011 1:10:56 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


80 posted on 09/26/2011 1:13:33 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Directive 10-289, anyone?


81 posted on 09/26/2011 1:17:41 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.

OK, how about if they are registered DEMOCRATS?

82 posted on 09/26/2011 1:19:35 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


83 posted on 09/26/2011 1:25:17 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Time to move forward not to the center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
I might agree with you if you are not counting the under-employed. My wife just got laid off. In this economy I would expect that it will take a very long time to find something even remotely close to what she did before.

So would you hold it against her if she volunteered for a charity and wrote a technical book during her unemployment time???? Would you not hire her, just because her company went under through no fault of hers and she ends up out of work for a year?
84 posted on 09/26/2011 1:28:10 PM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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!


85 posted on 09/26/2011 1:28:16 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This would make me want to hire someone. Sure. I could get sued just be interviewing prospective employees? Are they nuts?


86 posted on 09/26/2011 1:28:43 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

So now wanting to rid the nation of unemployment could be in the same category as ethnic cleansing?


87 posted on 09/26/2011 1:31:44 PM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

It would take several decades of solid conservative rule to undo all the crap this guy is doing


88 posted on 09/26/2011 1:32:01 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: dsthompson

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.


89 posted on 09/26/2011 1:33:49 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
It's none of the governments business. Why hire someone who's lazy and milked the system for all it's worth when they can get someone who really wants a job?
President Zero should just stay out of it, or he'll screw it up like he's screwed up everything else.

90 posted on 09/26/2011 1:37:40 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Obama strikes again. In his usual fashion, he will accomplish the opposite of what he states. Firms will either hire no one or expand operations overseas.
91 posted on 09/26/2011 1:37:50 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
If you are an engineer, and take a job delivering pizza's, you will more than likely never work as an engineer again.

That is a bad sign to employers. It means you are desperate.

92 posted on 09/26/2011 1:40:58 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
We can't discriminate because of race but we CAN discriminate because of party affiliation.

I REFUSE to hire anybody that is a liberal/socialist/marxist/obama boot licker.

Wanna job? Good luck!

93 posted on 09/26/2011 1:43:40 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

Everything that occurs anywhere at any time is scrutinzed for opportunistic use by the O reelection team.


94 posted on 09/26/2011 1:45:21 PM PDT by firebrand (Why didn't they impeach him? He's now totally out of control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Not in this economy. I’d rather have someone who will work.


95 posted on 09/26/2011 1:47:00 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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


96 posted on 09/26/2011 1:48:56 PM PDT by manc (Hannity the fraud he admitted he's socially liberal he's no conservative marriage=1man+ 1 woman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.....

hmmmmm interesting....


97 posted on 09/26/2011 1:50:00 PM PDT by Typical_Whitey (Ask a liberal to explain how tax increases create jobs in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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


98 posted on 09/26/2011 1:52:13 PM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


99 posted on 09/26/2011 1:54:27 PM PDT by manc (Hannity the fraud he admitted he's socially liberal he's no conservative marriage=1man+ 1 woman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
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.

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.

100 posted on 09/26/2011 1:58:38 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson