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

Skip to comments.

Obama Proposes Adding ‘Unemployed’ to Protected Status
New York Times ^ | September 26, 2011 | ROBERT PEAR

Posted on 09/26/2011 11:29:43 AM PDT by reaganaut1

President Obama has not been particularly successful in fostering the creation of jobs. But he thinks he has found a way to pry open doors in the workplace for many of the unemployed, especially those who have been out of work for a long time.

Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just like when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

White House officials see discrimination against the unemployed as a serious problem. In a radio interview last month, Mr. Obama said such discrimination made “absolutely no sense,” especially at a time when many people, through no fault of their own, had been laid off.

Mr. Obama’s proposal would also prohibit employment agencies and Web sites from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received reports of such advertisements but does not have data to show how common they are.

Republicans and some employers criticized the White House proposal. They said that discrimination was not common and that the proposed remedy could expose employers to a barrage of lawsuits.

“We do not see a need for it,” said Michael J. Eastman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Already, Mr. Eastman said, the Civil Rights Act outlaws employment practices that have “a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 0bamathewaiver; alohabarryyourefired; bhofascism; bhosocialism; china; corporations; corruption; democrats; fraud; globalism; impeachthesob; liberalfascism; maobama; nobama2012; obama; socialism; socialistdemocrats; typicalbarackperson; unemployed; unemployment; yourefiredbarry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-164 next last
To: chuckee
EEOC cases are capped at 300k. When you add in lawyer fees and expenses, the payout for an EEOC lawsuit isn't really all that much.

Now, burning yourself with hot coffee... that's the golden ticket apparently. So, disabled people who get screwed, 300k max. Stupid people, no limit.
121 posted on 09/26/2011 2:49:49 PM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Oh, barefoot boy with cheeks of tan
Someday you’ll be a barefoot man
You’re elders are out on a spree
Bankrupting their posterity.


122 posted on 09/26/2011 2:51:04 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

My guess is that Obama could not even DEFINE “free enterprise.”


He and his voters would say that it means you don’t have to pay for Enterprise. It’s free!!!


123 posted on 09/26/2011 2:59:10 PM PDT by Loud Mime (The Obama voters are dumber than you think, meaner than you can imagine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Picture of the Decade, as far as I’m concerned. Should be a bumper sticker gracing the front AND rear of every VRWC member’s car...


124 posted on 09/26/2011 3:01:57 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
The Working Man wrote:
Every time I see this proposal I am struck at just how d*mn dumb it is. You might as well title it the “If you aren’t employed now you never will be again” Bill.

No Business is going to risk interviewing ANY unemployed person for any position.
Actually, there will be no open positions. Failing to interview unemployed persons for an open position could open you to being sued under this act. If this passes, there will be no job openings until it is repealed.
125 posted on 09/26/2011 3:07:07 PM PDT by ¢ommon ¢ents ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Individual Rights in NJ
I call it the 60-90 rule.

Single women were given questions and told that based upon their answers they are compatible with and shown a picture of an attractive guy who they are told is single - when asked if they wanted this single attractive guy who they are compatible with to call her - only 60% of women wanted him to call.

If they were told he was “in a relationship” - 90% of the women wanted him to call.

Somewhat counter-intuitive until you use a “woman's intuition” and figure it out. Why not hire someone who already has a job and is doing well there?

126 posted on 09/26/2011 3:13:36 PM 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 103 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I feel honored to be in the same class as the Snail Darter.


127 posted on 09/26/2011 3:34:20 PM PDT by GreatMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I do run across a lot of technical people that refuse to take a pay cut, so they remain unemployed.


128 posted on 09/26/2011 4:30:43 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I do run across a lot of technical people that refuse to take a pay cut, so they remain unemployed.


129 posted on 09/26/2011 4:31:07 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Our president is smoking more than tobacco.


130 posted on 09/26/2011 4:37:21 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Look for a 9.5% unemployment rate coming soon to a business near you.


131 posted on 09/26/2011 4:51:44 PM PDT by lwoodham (There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

And he will make sure that there are as many unemployed as possible.


132 posted on 09/26/2011 4:56:23 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
Just go around applying for work and when you are turned down simply file a lawsuit. Then settle out of court, rinse and repeat.

The only way around this is to have such a structured hiring process that looks at skill levels only, and what is required to do the job. Have a score card, if you get XX score, you move to the next step, less than XX score you are out, each step would have a threshold. Each position would have to have the exact requirements, nothing more, nothing less. Creating that becomes a nightmare, then adhering to it becomes another nightmare, because once you have strayed from the plan for one person, you have to stray from the plan for them all, especially if someone realizes you've strayed. (sigh)

Sorry headstamp, none of this is directed at you, I'm just venting.

We were hiring a part-time front office/admin person. The job was approximately 30 hours a week, $12-15/hour depending on experience and eligible for group bonuses when sales numbers were met. Tuition reimbursement of up to 1000 per year based on grades. It was an 8-4 role, no nights, no weekend.

I had a woman tell me that if it was only 30 hours per week, then we'd have to increase the rate to cover her 40 hour a week salary demands. That wasn't the position. I had another tell me that she only wanted to work nights and weekends so as not to interfere with her full-time job.

It took me a month to find a nice person, who met the qualifications (typing, phone work, ability to learn, ability to speak proper english), that didn't look like a freak (front desk, remember) and hire her.

What really got me where the people that called up and said, "You half ta hire me" (intentionally left in phonetics)... Umm, no I don't.

So, the structured hiring process, I use it a lot when I have to tell some one that they are not it. Why not? You can't type. You don't know basic Word or Excel. You can't follow simple directions and fill out the application (which is required by the government), or my favorite lately.. You lied on your application. That's a deal breaker.

I know HR people catch a lot of flack here, but sometimes we're boxed in trying to keep the sue happy people out of the company, we're a small company, but no one likes the sue happy. We actually had a person, about a year and half ago, flat out told the rest of the staff that if we ever fired her, she would sue us. We had to document everything in triplicate to get rid of her and be prepared for the claim she tried to level against us.

And I am still looking for an inside phone sales person. And that is hard too, certain types don't want to sit at a desk and dial the phone. They want X, Y and Z and we only offer X, because that is the type of role it is. The frustration is on both sides.

But in trying to make the unemployed a protected class, the government is just begging them to be discriminated against, especially if it is going to be "you're not selected because you are not qualified, or you are not hired because you flat out said in the interview you hate doing the work, or as I had one gentleman ask me "I don't want to be in the office all day, can you change the job description?" and they go file a lawsuit?

So what then, the government will mandate what my job descriptions are now? That means they can take over our business model and adjust it as they see fit? This is just bad for small business, and it will further automate the larger businesses HR departments to avoid it altogether,

133 posted on 09/26/2011 5:12:11 PM PDT by RikaStrom (Pray for Obama - Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take his place of leadership.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Epic stupidity knows no bounds.


134 posted on 09/26/2011 5:26:18 PM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

What? are you effing SERIOUS??? This nation is 14 trillion in debt and THIS is Oblidiots focus?

Damn, just when I thought it couldn’t get any dumber....


135 posted on 09/26/2011 6:14:27 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Yep! All part of the plan.

What OTHER ‘special interest group’ is he going to exploit????


136 posted on 09/26/2011 7:15:11 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Attaaaack Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch!!!!! XD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

But “the plan” is working perfectly.

This is the first step towards making being unemployed the new normal.


137 posted on 09/26/2011 7:19:31 PM PDT by upchuck (Rerun: Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Yeah right. Even if the dems still had a super majority they wouldn’t do this. It’s all show. They don’t care.


138 posted on 09/26/2011 7:20:29 PM PDT by Aglooka ("I was out numbered 5-to-1, I got 4.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

By September of next year, he’ll be agitating for a bill to give every family a free crack pipe.


139 posted on 09/26/2011 7:51:23 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

“The only people in America that do NOT belong to an Obama “Protected Class” are native-born, employed, non-obese, non-union, straight, White males.”

Add under 40 to that. If you are over 40 you are protected against ageism.


140 posted on 09/26/2011 8:32:12 PM PDT by ChowChowFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-164 next last

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