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?
I’m seeing the problem as more fundamental even than that. This creates a situation where the perp can legally extort from a victim. An unemployed person comes in, files an application and the employer can assume they’ll sue if they aren’t hired (as 70% of applicants won’t). So the smart employer sets up a fund to pay a fixed amount, not a large one but enough to make suing not worth the time and effort. You could make a good living then just applying for jobs, collecting the payoff and moving on to the next target.
Leave it to the Chicago Mob to come up with a way of legalizing extortion.
Can things get more stupid ?
Yes...Barky’s got 400 days to go.
Good idea. I suggest adding RICO charges.
In the name of Privacy???
I was just required to fill out the Department of Commerce so called Community Survey. In it I was required to reveal such things as having flush toilets, whether English is spoken in the building I live in (I used the Henry Higgins response), how long it takes me to get to work along with a slew of other none-of-the-goverments business questions. Privacy is something this government is selectively concerned with.
Sounds like they use HIPPA and this privacy concern as a weapon of power just to show they are our lords. Bow down to our lords.
Hence, the lawyer's paradise. Like I said in another reply, the smart companies just say they'll pay some small amount, like $100 if you apply and aren't hired.
Presto changeo: legalized extortion.
I may be mistaken but I don’t think that federal elections in these United States have ever been suspended, nor do I think such a course is likely - neither would it be Constitutional.
The Constitution calls for elections on particular dates, there is no escape clause because you are busy dealing with other issues.
I feel like I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole.
If this idiocy and its purveyor(s) aren’t laughed into political irrelevance, you may as well stick a fork in this country.
‘Can’t tell the players with out a score card!’
1. Eric Holder’s people, convicted felon,mental handicaps,obese, female, reformed violent drug addict, long term unemployed.
2.Eric Holder’s people...
100. Tea Party type, male,honorable military discharge.
You miss my point. There will be no more "applications." No employer would open himself up to lawsuits by posting job openings.
I believe we’ve used up our ridicule quotient. Time for sterner measures up to which I am unsure our representatives are capable of imposing. These people need to be forcibly removed from office, branded as traitors and incarcerated in facilities away from safer criminals, like drug dealers and murderers.
The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY unprovable.
Hey gang, when do the 5 years plans begin to roll out?
That chart is indeed very revealing.
Could explain why Obama allowed the health care challenge to fast track to SCOTUS. He needs his own plan to die in order to create jobs and save his political skin. But he needs someone else to take the fall for it.
Yes, but just the actual idea that this could be allowed would invite all sorts of frivolous, time-consuming, and expensive lawsuits to be filed and challenged. It would be a huge blow and expense to companies of all sizes.
Does this meen John McCain can sue for ageism in losing to Barry?
And that would prevent a lawsuit from going forward? How? It's all up to the lawyers and the judges. And we know how competent they are, don't we?
I’m still not seeing that provability is an issue. I totally agree it should be, but it looks like status will confer enough probability to make the situation expensive regardless and the company policy will quickly adapt to minimize cost.
This is why I am adamantly opposed to even considering a law like this: it makes the company into an automatic victim and opens the door to every kind of extortion based on class, whether incidental or inherent. This is a fundamental change in the nature of our law, not just an extension of a stupid social policy that we pray saner heads someday repeal. Consider that a Justice Department under people like Eric Holder will actively support actions in support of unemployed (especially those of already-protected classes) against companies and you have a situation where provability will be truly irrelevant. The company will be subject to public harassment. Stories will be published in the state-run Media whining about cold-hearted bosses (the Atlantic Wire article has the relevant first draft of the picture right at the head) and the situation will rapidly move from unpleasant to threatening, all in the name of corporate compassion.
Nope, I’d love it if provability were going to matter, but this kind of law will make that a non-issue in the end and the consequences will reverberate through the rest of the law. This is actually worse than Obamacare because that only violates the rights of citizens not to engage in financial commerce. They are not made into criminals. This violates corporations’ right to free assocation AND makes citizens into Mob street workers and thus criminals before the fact.
That would mean he would remember to. I’m not seeing him go there. It wouldn’t be nice enough.
Dividing America in every way possible.
Obama and his corrupt and treasonist democrats have created a business environment that discourages job creation.
This kind of nonsense may very well go a long way to creating a......... national hiring freeze.
When business is no longer driven by the accumulation of wealth, there is little reason to grow, at least in THIS country.
Obama is insane.
State of Emergency:
When 10+ million angry patriots with blood in their eyes, head to D.C. with their torches and pitchforks.
Obama and his democrats seem to be begging for such an emergency.
Such “guidelines”, laws and our Constitution mean nothing to Obama.
...or a criminal, which is even worse. If the Republicans could only find a smidgeon of spine, they’d vote up a resolution about mental capacity and force the Dems to confront it. If he’s a criminal, it’s probably much harder...legislative attacks would only make him look like the victim he would love to be.
They all knew me, and as I had an appointed time, I guess I was put into their computer system as having arrived. I'm sure computerization can accommodate this particular change without much trouble, it just seems so overreaching and meddling for someone in government to think this needed to be done. I can tell you agree.
That's what I was told.
I know of a whole industry that was killed in the name of privacy.
H and R block was the leading lender for what's known as RALs, or Refund Anticipation Loans. Many low wage earners, as you probably know, do have withholding taken from their checks, and then when they file taxes they get all their withholding back, plus transfer payments from various programs. The average withholding is around $1600 per year, and the transfer payments mean that each year, these people get back an average of $4200 total. These people go to the Liberty Tax services, H&R Blocks, and Jackson-Hewletts of the world and receive an upfront check on what they are due, in the form of a loan. The tax services make about $250 per loan, plus a small amount of interest.
When fronting the money, the tax preparers were allowed to have the customer sign an agreement, and then use their information to contact an IRS sponsored website, to make sure that there were no unknown deductions (child support, etc.) that would reduce the refund. This they did to insure the check they were giving the customer up front would actually be received.
In 2009, I believe as part of Dodd-Frank, the IRS was told to take down the site, in the name of privacy. H & R block got completely out of the RAL business, as did Liberty. Jackson Hewitt is still doing them, with a limit of $1500. This harmed consumers, who obviously wanted the anticipation loans, and the employees that serviced these loans all lost their jobs.
"Privacy" is now just another hammer for socialists to hit captialists in the head with.