Posted on 09/28/2011 7:52:11 AM PDT by Scythian
Advocates for the unemployed have cheered a push by the Obama administration to ban discrimination against the jobless. But business groups and their allies are calling the effort unnecessary and counterproductive.
The job creation bill that President Obama sent to Congress earlier this month includes a provision that would allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue if they think a company of 15 more employees denied them a job because they were unemployed.
The provision would ban employment ads that explicitly declare the unemployed ineligible, with phrases like "Jobless need not apply." As The Lookout has reported, such ads appear to have proliferated in recent years, prompting an inquiry by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
employment discrimination fees can be capped and often are.
If this ain’t satire it is sick. How many “ambulance chasers” have Zero in their back pocket?
not breaking though, this came out a few weeks ago shortly after he proposed his “jobs bill”
So, instead of having the resources available to hire on new employees, corporations and small businesses will have to expend those resources defending themselves in court. Yeah, that makes sense.
What it amounts to is a jobs plan for trial lawyers.
The unemployed should sue Big Hollywood, Google, GE and the federal gov’t.
Worse part is, for the folks who are actively searching for work, this will only make finding a job even harder. It’s analogous to what a rise in the minimum wage does, IMO. And you can’t call it an unintended consequence since the people proposing this know dang good and well what it’ll do.
To preface, I am completely against this proposal, it’s stupid and will only harm those who are unemployed and looking for a job. The result of this kind of law would be that the long-term unemployed wouldn’t even get an interview.
But there is another side to this. It is a well known fact that some recruiters have a policy that they will not even consider interviewing people who are not currently employed. This is also stupid and counter-productive, especially in this economy where we have millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own (one being my husband).
My hope is that every person who applies for a job will be given a fair chance to compete for it and that the best “man” for the job is the one who gets hired. No one should be excluded simply because they don’t have a current job. But these policies should be changed by the hiring companies themselves and not by some idiot legistlation coming out of DC.
There won’t be another latino or colored person hired in my lifetime if this passes.
The easiest way to avoid this is that small companies will simply not be hiring. "I'm sorry, sir, we're currently not hiring right now." or "I'm sorry, ma'am, we don't have any open positions in the company right now." Take down any job postings you have and there you go.
Yeah, that'll do wonderful things for the economy./sarc
Hired by who?
Yes, but in many states, you have to take applications regardless of whether there are openings. Those apps have to be reviewed for consideration for any jobs that come open that the applicant is qualified for. What will happen is basically what’s happeneing now only worse. No one who is unemployed will get called back for an interview.
As I've seen and heard, many of these unemployed are people in their 40’s and 50’s. Many of these people had been working for a company which closed or an industry which left the Country. Many of these people are far from “Obama incompetents”. Some of these people are your fellow Freepers.
Most of these people didn't choose to be unemployed. Most of these people are victims of Obama’s Socialism.
When you look through a “help wanted” section of a newspaper or look at a job board, there is no doubt that being unemployed is a disqualification for employment by a number of larger companies. I think the policy could be viewed as discriminatory and will likely be tested in court, without legislation.
As for Obama and his stance on more discrimination laws aimed at the unemployed, call it a “Hail Mary”. An old saying of politics, “unemployed constituents are unhappy constituents”. Obama can propose anything he wants to, but there's no chance he's going to gain a majority of the unemployed voters.
I wouldn't hire them unless they had a damn good excuse why they hadn't worked for 60 days or more. In most cases there is a reason for it, being lazy is often at the top of the list. By that I mean as a general rule. There are exceptions.
(Stuck On Stupid)
Obama is just feathering his own nest for when he becomes unemployed in 2012 and he can sue McDonald’s for rejecting his employment application to work the fryer because he is unemployed.
Yep. Jeez, how many threads are out there on this?
Too late...that was what the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and everything that stemmed from it, resulting in what is going on today was all about.
Banks were “discriminating” in lending money, and not giving loans to people who couldn’t pay it back because they didn’t have any.
They sure fixed that.
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.