Skip to comments.'Hardball with Chris Matthews' 9/27/2011 (‘Outlaw discrimination based on employment record’)
Posted on 09/30/2011 9:55:29 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Chris Matthews: And speaking of the president`s jobs plan, there`s one part that hasn`t gotten a great deal of attention, according to "The New York Times." The president is backing a proposal to prohibit employers in this country from discriminating against job applicants who are unemployed, in other words, if you`re out of work, you can`t apply for work.
A company can`t discount you based on the fact that you don`t currently have a job. It would also stop job boards and employment agencies from advertising for positions that exclude unemployed workers.
I never heard anything like this. Is it a good idea? Well, there are 14 million people out of work today in the United States and 4.5 million of those have been unemployed for more than a year. So do the math, 4.5 million people sitting out there right now who want to work right now, in fact, are walking the street looking for jobs.
Dana Milbank is a columnist for "The Washington Post." Steve Moore is a senior economic writer for "The Wall Street Journal."
I have to ask you, to start off at the bat -- let`s go with Steve -- what is the case for employers being allowed to say, don`t waste my time if you`re unemployed looking for a job; you`re not going to even get an interview here?
STEPHEN MOORE, SENIOR ECONOMIC WRITER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I don`t think it`s -- I don`t think it`s right to say, like, you know, like Irish need not apply, unemployed need not apply.
But I do think, Chris, that it is important for employers to be able to look at the worker job history, and if somebody`s been out of work for a long time, for better or for worse, that`s usually a negative on their resume. It doesn`t look -- I always tell people, you know, the best way to find a job is to have a job. And so --
MATTHEWS: But, Steve, you`re being redundant. If you tell a person they can`t apply for a job because they have been out of work, then the next time they apply for a job, they will say, you have been out of work longer; therefore, you can`t apply for this job.
It seems like it`s a redundant, vicious cycle you`re creating here.
MOORE: Well --
MATTHEWS: Don`t hire the unemployed, so they can be unemployed next week and not get hired by someone who won`t hire the unemployed.
Isn`t that a problem you have just created right here on this show?
MOORE: Well, this is why I think these --
Advertise | AdChoicesMATTHEWS: You have just done it. You have stepped in it.
MOORE: No, I think that --
MOORE: I think the -- I think problem is -- one of the big problems with the -- half of the people who are unemployed now have been unemployed for more than six months.
I think one of the reasons for that, and the statistics show this, is we keep extending unemployment insurance. That`s kept people unemployed longer than they would otherwise be, and it`s hurt their job market prospects.
MATTHEWS: So, as they go out there to apply for a job, they`re told they can`t apply because they have been unemployed. But you say they don`t go looking for jobs because they have been getting benefits.
Which is it? Are they looking for jobs and being rejected?
MATTHEWS: Why would they put those signs up if they weren`t having people come in and looking for jobs or unemployed? They wouldn`t need to sign.
MOORE: Look --
MATTHEWS: It`s a good question. You don`t know the answer, do you? Why would you tell a person not to apply for unemployment when they unemployed aren`t looking for jobs? You wouldn`t need the sign, would you?
MOORE: Look, Chris, you`re taking out of context my words. I don`t think it`s fair for employers to say, if you don`t have a job, you can`t apply. But I do think it`s certainly legitimate for businesses to look at the work history. If somebody`s been out of work for two years, you`re less likely to want to hire that person than somebody two actually has been working.
MATTHEWS: OK. Dana, let me ask you this about this. I didn`t know this was going on. And I`ll tell you one thing -- I`m into politics, not hiring people. I think it sounds like hell.
This is the worst I`ve heard. You don`t help a guy or a woman who`s out of work, say a plant closed. It`s not their fault, they`re living in some small town, all there is is the plant. There`s not another plant opening up. It`s not their fault.
DANA MILBANK, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Right. And Barack Obama, in proposing this, you know, buried in the legislation, is praying that John Boehner will say the same sort of thing that Steve Moore just said, because, you know, leaving aside the economics, it puts the president --
MATTHEWS: So, this is a booby trap?
MILBANK: Well, sure it is. I mean, look, very few things in this jobs bill are being passed. The only real unemployment we`re talking about here is preventing Barack Obama from becoming unemployed, so he`s picking various fights with Republicans. Even if this were implemented, you know, these things would take months if not years to resolve in lawsuits.
But it`s good politics and it`s illustrated by the fact that there`s one state that`s doing this sort of thing, blocking employers from having these ads saying "no unemployed need apply," and that is New Jersey. And this law was signed by Chris Christie. The man all these Republicans --
MATTHEWS: He`s with the president on this. He signed the bill.
Here`s the -- by the way, Christie`s agrees with the president. I know that the other day.
Here`s the president last month explaining why this kind of protection for the unemployed job applicant is necessary. By the way, he`s on the very popular "Tom Joyner Radio Show." Let`s listen to him.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have seen instances in which employers are explicitly saying, we don`t want to take a look at folks who have been unemployed. Well, that makes absolutely no sense. And I know there`s legislation that I`m supportive of that says, you know, you cannot discriminate against folks because they been unemployed, particularly when you`ve seen so many folks who, through no fault of their own, ended up being laid off because of the difficulties of this recession.
let’s not have any standards in employment. worked for the Dems in 2008 Pres. election.
I see both sides of this but I lean more to the idea it is wrong for a company to not consider people who are unemployed.
that is some catch 22
are there some who are milking the sytem/ Absolutely but i think far far more would like to have a job.
I am not sure suing the compnay is the answer and there probably is no good answer
I havent done one of these in a while but this one segment is priceless.
how can anyone watch or listen or even give time of their day to this buffoon?
You have think like a leftist and an attorney. Think endless lawsuits, EEOC compliance reviews, investigations, government "unemployed" applicants going from company to company looking to be rejected, settlement agreements, etc. etc.
I have a black Democrat friend who works as a manager at a large company on a technical product line who has to hire and manage workers. We talked yesterday and he admitted this idea of Dems was unrealistic and counterproductive, which I thought was obvious.
If you cant discriminate based on employment history then it makes no sense to hire any American workers here in the USA unless the government gives you the money.
There are already so many questions it’s against the law to ask an applicant, now this.
I propose that all employers be issued a government-approved dart board for use in all hiring decisions.
That’s right Chrissy! Create ANOTHER law that causes employers to stop accepting job applications and resumes from people seeking work. Why do something that could potentially land you ass in court? Brilliant! You freakin’ idiot!!! A typical dumbass DemocRAT. Always a kneejerk reaction to everything without ever thinking anything through.
Maybe we should not allow employers to ask about work history.
Practically speaking that is what it would mean, but they know this will never be passed into law. Democrats in Maryland used to throw all kinds of stuff like this at the prior RINO governor to get him to veto it to demonize him.
The problem is that this is much like the banning of pre-existing condition exclusions and minimum wage, this type of thing is popular with most American voters who seem to not have a clue what second order longer term effects are. Public schools teach global warming and birth control when they need (Austrian) economics and history.
I believe the unemployed should have the right to apply for employment. I also believe employers should have the right to reject employment on that basis. Sounds fair to me.
AS i said I see both sides but from a human standpoint how do unemployed people get hired if companies won’t hire unemployed people?
all that does is keep them on unemployment and congress voting to extend unemployment payments.
There doesn’t seem to be a good solution and I really really feel bad for people who got laid off or their companies closed and now they can’t even get interviews for work
Matthews makes that specific argument. I will respond on another comment to Matthews words and ping you.
I saw this segment and was especially interested when I saw Stephen Moore debating Matthews. Checkout the kind of crap below that Moore put up with. His big mistake is being too polite. You need to fight fire with fire. I would take his position and reframe it in a way that makes obvious how stupid Dems idea is, just as Matthews is framing Moore's. example below:
MATTHEWS: But, Steve, you`re being redundant. If you tell a person they can`t apply for a job because they have been out of work, then the next time they apply for a job, they will say, you have been out of work longer; therefore, you can`t apply for this job.It seems like it`s a redundant, vicious cycle you`re creating here.
SOL response :"Chris, How the hell do we get US employers to Hire anyone when you are making it impossible for them to do business here with stupid ideas like this? Does MSNBC use resumes with employment dates on them to screen candidates for employment? Then why do you make believe dumb stuff like this makes sense? Do you think all your viewers are idiots?"
MAN THAT FELT GOOD!
The simple answer is that companies that discriminate for irrational reasons are less effective than those who hire based on true potential.
tradition has it that being out of a job is a negative predictor. If it is, it shouldn’t be illegal to use. if it isn’t, there is no need to make it illegal because the error is its own punishment.
Your point is slightly different than Matthews but similar.
Employers are cherry-picking candidates because it's a employers market. It's an employers market largely but not solely because the government punishes employers for hiring and drives them to automation and offshoring with stupid ideas like this. If there were more jobs wrt candidates employers would have to (their best interest ) hire candidates that dont look perfect.
Killing the cow because it's not producing as much milk as the owner has kids is counterproductive.
yes i would like to read more
will open that link
somehow I did not read those threads the first time around..
Even though everything sheiff says is common sense and accurate i have NO doubt obama does not grasp. Well obama and those around him
I still wish there was a way to destigmatize those who have been unemployed and can’t even submit resumes
thanks for the info
There is no time machine, just like there is no way to reverse what the housing bubble caused wrt House prices and over-supply. And most government efforts to do so just prolong the pain as we have seen. One of my first Schiff posts was of this video classic.
This is just another baby step toward the eventual goal of assigning everyone a job. Some committee somewhere will determine where you’ll work and how much you’ll get paid - based on fairness, of course. This is just moving us in that direction.
Your post #4 picture of the ding bat.... MATTHEWS: So, this is a booby trap?
“I believe the unemployed should have the right to apply for employment. I also believe employers should have the right to reject employment on that basis. Sounds fair to me.”
I agree, no one could possibly justify requiring anything else. At the same time I don’t think it is WISE for someone seeking good help to refuse to consider anyone who is not currently employed. There are some very good people who are unemployed through no fault of their own right now. Of course I realize there are also a lot of people whose unemployment is of their own doing.
I read someplace that Rachel Madow was voted “Ugliest Man on Campus” when she was in college.......
“Lesbians: Real ones aren’t so hot.”
I love demotivational posters.
But you do see where a candidate currently employed would and should (if the employer has any sense) in most cases have the edge over someone on unemployment comp for say 14 months competing for a job? It is an employers market for most jobs and they naturally are cherry picking.
They don’t care if it is enforced or not. It is just another source of income for lawyers.
Although it is unpopular, employers should be able to accept or reject an employee based on any criteria. Yes, even race, gender, etc. As Milton Friedman pointed out, if an employer rejects a qualified candidate based on race, then it is that employer who will ultimately suffer because one his competitors will hire based on merit.
It was the government’s Jim Crow laws that made blacks into second class citizens. If it had been up to the business community and the free market had been allowed to operate, then businesses would have embraced the best employees and catered to the most customers.
Whenever you find a bad situation, you can be sure that government has either caused it or exacerbated it. Government efforts to “help”, always hurt those it intends to help the most. It’s the same with the stupid new rules on banks. Now banks are raising their fees due to the law, but the people are blaming the banks, instead of the politicians who created the mess.
You have think like a leftist and an attorney. Think endless lawsuits, EEOC compliance reviews, investigations, government "unemployed" applicants going from company to company looking to be rejected, settlement agreements, etc. etc.That's what this is all about. It's not just a "keep Obama employed" act -- as Moore stated in a few of the 20 words he was actually able to get in edgewise over miss chrissie's incessant interrupting -- but a full employment act for lawyers and bureaucrats.
WHENEVER a leftist says s/he's doing something "good", the end result is increased misery for the majority.