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

Skip to comments.

Obama Proposes Letting Unemployed Sue for Discrimination
Atlantic Wire ^ | 9/28/2011 | Elspeth Reeve

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; legal; obama; unemployment
You want fundamental change? Well, this will make our laws irrelevant.
1 posted on 09/28/2011 7:02:09 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Of course all of this would be unnecessary if the bastard would take his foot off the neck of the economy.

This is the perfect example of job of big government - propose to solve the problem it created itself.

2 posted on 09/28/2011 7:04:09 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

So basically all hiring will cease.


3 posted on 09/28/2011 7:05:06 AM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow; All

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s sue Obama and the DNC for personal injury.


4 posted on 09/28/2011 7:06:04 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Ubama thinks that any person who creates a job for another human being is, by definition, "rich," and deserves to be punished.

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.

5 posted on 09/28/2011 7:06:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

This is an impossible criteria to pass judgement on.


6 posted on 09/28/2011 7:06:46 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


7 posted on 09/28/2011 7:09:07 AM PDT by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded my brains fell out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


8 posted on 09/28/2011 7:09:39 AM PDT by bbernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

how about incompetence and willful intent to destroy America?


9 posted on 09/28/2011 7:09:42 AM PDT by himno hero (Obamas theme...Death to America...The crusaders will pay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
So basically all hiring will cease.

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...

10 posted on 09/28/2011 7:10:37 AM PDT by bcsco (Take a Cain - and cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


11 posted on 09/28/2011 7:11:57 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
So basically all hiring will cease.

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.


12 posted on 09/28/2011 7:12:10 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


13 posted on 09/28/2011 7:12:27 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Lawyers don’t need another jobs vill


14 posted on 09/28/2011 7:12:42 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (To punish a province let it be ruled by a professor Fredrick The Great paraphrased)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


15 posted on 09/28/2011 7:12:43 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


16 posted on 09/28/2011 7:14:17 AM PDT by myrabach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Take heart, it was ideas just like this that helped first Hoover and then FDR extend the Great Depression.


17 posted on 09/28/2011 7:15:07 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Another bit of stupidity from the Magic Mulatto. This bit of mouth diarrhea is not only DOA but won't even be considered. Elections have consequences Barry and you lost. I expect the MM to now echo what that brain donor NC governor said about suspending elections. I still think this idiot will have to be removed by the military Jan 2013, he will not accept the 2012 elections and claim he has to remain till all the lawsuits work themselves out.
18 posted on 09/28/2011 7:18:02 AM PDT by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

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?


19 posted on 09/28/2011 7:18:40 AM PDT by myrabach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01

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?


20 posted on 09/28/2011 7:22:54 AM PDT by myrabach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

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.


21 posted on 09/28/2011 7:23:23 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: myrabach

Can things get more stupid ?
Yes...Barky’s got 400 days to go.


22 posted on 09/28/2011 7:24:22 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Good idea. I suggest adding RICO charges.


23 posted on 09/28/2011 7:24:40 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

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-goverment’s 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.

The NappyOne


24 posted on 09/28/2011 7:25:09 AM PDT by NappyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
This is an impossible criteria to pass judgement on.

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.

25 posted on 09/28/2011 7:27:12 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: myrabach

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.


26 posted on 09/28/2011 7:28:41 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


27 posted on 09/28/2011 7:30:03 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myrabach

‘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...

3.Eric Holder’s...

100. Tea Party type, male,honorable military discharge.


28 posted on 09/28/2011 7:32:07 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
An unemployed person comes in, files an application

You miss my point. There will be no more "applications." No employer would open himself up to lawsuits by posting job openings.

29 posted on 09/28/2011 7:36:41 AM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

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.


30 posted on 09/28/2011 7:44:09 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
So someone applies for a job. You don't hire him...for whatever reason. He says it's because you're unemployed.

The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY unprovable.

31 posted on 09/28/2011 7:44:56 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Soon you won't have to worry about hiring decisions. The government will just deliver the people you are to hire to your door. No decision required, or skills, or will to work, or anything else.

Hey gang, when do the 5 years plans begin to roll out?

32 posted on 09/28/2011 7:55:52 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

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.


33 posted on 09/28/2011 7:57:21 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bbernard
Just what we need, another feel good but do no good unenforcable law. What a joke.

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.

34 posted on 09/28/2011 8:00:36 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Does this meen John McCain can sue for ageism in losing to Barry?


35 posted on 09/28/2011 8:02:45 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (See ya later, debt inflator ! Gone in 4 (2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY unprovable.

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?

36 posted on 09/28/2011 8:03:16 AM PDT by bcsco (Take a Cain - and cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


37 posted on 09/28/2011 8:03:28 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

That would mean he would remember to. I’m not seeing him go there. It wouldn’t be nice enough.


38 posted on 09/28/2011 8:05:10 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

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.


39 posted on 09/28/2011 9:00:22 AM PDT by Gator113 (Palin 2012, period.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myrabach

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.


40 posted on 09/28/2011 9:10:01 AM PDT by Gator113 (Palin 2012, period.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

...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.


41 posted on 09/28/2011 9:47:56 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: myrabach
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?

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.

42 posted on 09/29/2011 6:39:02 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NappyOne
In the name of Privacy???

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.

43 posted on 09/29/2011 6:54:04 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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