Skip to comments.Obama Proposes Adding ‘Unemployed’ to Protected Status
Posted on 09/26/2011 11:29:43 AM PDT by reaganaut1
click here to read article
Hey me too. Maybe the Jerry Springer show or a cool HOUSEMATES from Hell" show. You know pooping where the outhouse should be( the new Joisey pool room or peeing in the hot tub" Damun never seen such a crappse this size, guess the guy is really fat , well what the hey'ziiiiip") starting a fire in the living room tearing apart all the furniture for kindling and dumpster diving the neighbors homes! Damun that would be fun fun fun.I hope maybe they'll give us low income housing welfare and a mercedes like I've seen( never rec'd welfare BUT I seen them illegals and others dropped off in RICH cars, all living with the best Kaker gears , 200+ tennis shoes, and them cares, jiguars and Mercedes and beemers and there I was photographing until some guy wanted to break my cameras...but maybe they'll give us the "big house' and a mercedes LOL. But hell I'll setttle for a Beemer wouldn't you..heh protected class? Do we get to go to museums for free? Can we protest with the muzzies...i mean plant bombs in Dearborn and stuff, hell we're PROTECTED, it's what we mountain critters do!
In large cites in the real world it does not work that way.Most hires are not made from active solicitations of the currently employed by employers who are about to go out of business. A few are but they are the exception rather than the rule. Many general skills jobs are either advertised or word is put out and referrals are made.If a referral is made and a qualified candidate is out of work, they are out of luck under a no unemployed need apply rule.From a personal experience perspective, a hiring manager may be just as suspect as why the employed candidate in front me of is looking to switch.My experience in hiring currently employed sales people is that most had poor sales numbers. From a business perspective, a top down inflexible no unemployed need not apply rule prejudging the field and dictating who a manager must not hire is just as unwise as a congressional legislation dictating who must be hired.
I bolded those comparative words because that is precisely the point. No screening tool is perfect -- not interviews, not resumes, not recommendations, and not whether they've been unemployed for an extended period. However, just because those screening tools aren't perfect doesn't mean they're not useful, or that employers aren't being reasonable in using those screening mechanisms.
Employment is a zero sum game -- if one person gets a job, someone else doesn't. The real problem is that not enough new jobs are being created. If net jobs are being created, then someone, somewhere, would have to be hiring the unemployed by definition. When you forbid employers form considering employment status, the most you're accomplishing is shuffling the individuals who are among the unemployed. You're not actually reducing unemployment at all.
Stupid, stupid proposal.
How about getting rid of NAFTA instead?
Sharp as an orange.
Exactly. This whore is the epitome of the RATS. Anything that will keep them in office.
Its certainly possible for a IT worker in their 50’s or older being out of work that long. You realize how hard it is to get work even with relevant skills, given the huge numbers of foreign born young IT workers in the country?
Go ahead and tar good people with that brush, but remember that sooner or later you will also be older and get to experience the smirks on the faces of interviewers young enough to be our kids.
No one in the Hood left behind program.....?
I honestly believe that Engineers need to unionize.
What other profession has it’s own Visa category to keep wagers low? (H-1B Visa) You don’t see Visa’s for Medical Doctors, or any other white collar profession.
We are skilled, we are educated, we are dedicated - and we are being sold down the river.
Thanks for the note, but I am living it being 55 and owning a small staffing company. I am simply making generalizations that are consistent with my extensive experience and the experience of others. There are always exceptions, but these are a small percent of the total.
Kind of like the "no documentation" home loans.
Sweet - making it legally more risky to hire is sure to boost hiring, Thanks Mr. Obama! Not to mention this is yet another intrusion into an area where the government has no business poking its nose.
Note that this makes it especially risky to interview people (or even request resumes from those) who are unemployed.
Brilliant! Better to just silently fill the position without a public recruitment process - lessens the risk of a lawsuit, after all.
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.