Skip to comments.Obama Proposes Letting Unemployed Sue for Discrimination
Posted on 09/28/2011 7:02:05 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow
President Obama's jobs bill proposes making being unemployed a protected status -- meaning it would be "an unlawful employment practice" to decide not to hire someone because he or she doesn't have a job, The New York Times' Robert Pear reports. That would put joblessness on par with race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, meaning job applicants who think they were shot down because they haven't had a job would be able to sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
This is the perfect example of job of big government - propose to solve the problem it created itself.
So basically all hiring will cease.
I’ve got a better idea. Let’s sue Obama and the DNC for personal injury.
The way jobs are created is that somebody has an idea, goes out and borrows money and hires people to implement that idea, and prays that his idea generates enough cash flow to cover all the obligations he has shouldered and give him/her some income too.
And along come Eric Holder's people who think they have a "right" to those jobs.
This is an impossible criteria to pass judgement on.
I can see the consequences being
1) long-term unemployed will get NO interviews whatsoever. Who would want to risk bringing such a person in, and then having to reject them?
2) More hiring given to “insiders” - existing employees, friends, relatives. Fewer jobs will be advertised to the public.
3) Given that this will further destroy hiring and a flexible job-market, employees will fear even more losing their jobs. Using the language of the left - it will make existing employees easier to manipulate
4) more work for tort-lawyers, less for everyone else.
Now how the hell does he expect one could prove that this is why they were not hired?
Just what we need, another feel good but do no good unenforcable law. What a joke.
how about incompetence and willful intent to destroy America?
Could well be the outcome. Certainly all hiring of the currently employed. Also, what if 5 of 10 applications are from the unemployed with one job opening. Which one do you hire? And how many of the other 4 will likely sue? My comparison is somewhat off. Under these circumstances there would not be 10 applications because no one with a job would be prompted to seek work. Headhunters beware...
This is right out of “Catch-22”. I believe it was Major Major who had a strict rule, “You can only see me when I’m not in”. Now you can sue if someone discriminates against a person because he is not employed. Who is looking to hire only people who are working? And, by the way, you can’t make up rights. Protected classes are supposed to exist because their inalienable rights have been trampled. Unemployment is not an inalienable right.
New hiring has pretty much ceased because of Obamacare.
But the Obama jobs bill -- including that provision -- isn't going to pass because it's not a bill, it's a campaign speech. Even Zero doesn't believe it's going anywhere.
If I hire someone who is currently employed, doesn’t the job my new hire left, open up a slot for someone who is unemployed? How does my action change the net employed dynamic?
I went to the dentist yesterday, and when I went to the reception desk to sign in, I was notified that there was no longer a sign-in sheet. It seems that having a sign-in sheet means that I could know who may happen to be in the back having their teeth cleaned. I asked the dentist about it later and he said that it was part of HIPPA (sp?) a federal agency that had informed him the practice had to be outlawed, in the name of privacy.
Lawyers don’t need another jobs vill
You want to literally dry up any sort of official job postings or advertisements at all, just put this into effect. It opens the door for every applicant to sue, let alone every interviewee not hired.
I’m of the mindset that if I have a company, I should be able to hire and fire anyone I want. Whatever happened to that idea? Oh yeah, unions and liberals, duh I forgot.
Take heart, it was ideas just like this that helped first Hoover and then FDR extend the Great Depression.
So is the receptionist then responsible to know who is there and in what order? How do you then get called in? Do you have to take a number like the deli counter? Can things get any more stupid?
This is interesting from unfortunately my governor but I’m wondering if it could be laying the groundwork. I understand that if the president were to declare a state of emergency, all elections would be suspended including presidential election. Are there any guidelines as to what could be considered a state of emergency?
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.