Posted on 09/28/2011 7:02:05 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow
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-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
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...
3.Eric Holder’s...
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.
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.