'Hardball with Chris Matthews' 9/27/2011 (‘Outlaw discrimination based on employment record’)

tvguideonline video ^ | September 27, 2011 | Matthews/Moore video

[sickoflibs]

Poor Stephen Moore seemed unprepared for such idiotic arguments . First liberals like Matthews demand that we keep these folks on unemployment comp for years, making them unemployable. Next he wants to outlaw discrimination based on 'employment record' which he says is an Obama idea.

[sappy]

let’s not have any standards in employment. worked for the Dems in 2008 Pres. election.

[RWGinger]

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

[sickoflibs]

MSNBC idea of Job creation ping!

I havent done one of these in a while but this one segment is priceless.

[manc]

how can anyone watch or listen or even give time of their day to this buffoon?

[nerdwithagun]

I am not worried either way, as this law would be almost impossible to enforce. Granted there are bleedy heart judges and lawyers, but unless you they start pushing X many newly hired employees must be previously unemployed I don't see how lawyers or beaurocrats could keep track and enforce it.

[Truth29]

"I am not worried either way, as this law would be almost impossible to enforce. Granted there are bleedy heart judges and lawyers, but unless you they start pushing X many newly hired employees must be previously unemployed I don't see how lawyers or beaurocrats could keep track and enforce it."

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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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.”

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.

[wayoverontheright]

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.

[FlingWingFlyer]

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.

[Mike Darancette]

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.

Maybe we should not allow employers to ask about work history.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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.

[luvbach1]

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.

[RWGinger]

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

[sickoflibs]

RE :"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."

Matthews makes that specific argument. I will respond on another comment to Matthews words and ping you.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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”

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!

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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”

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.

[sickoflibs]

I appreciate you debating me making it interesting, but you need to be on my Austrian Economic ping I can see:

Austrian Economic ping post list

[RWGinger]

yes i would like to read more
will open that link

thanks