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 ...
He must be thinking about his next job.
Relatively few long-term unemployed have been diligently and energetically seeking employment during the whole time. Most have gone on “funemployment” for a while, and afterward, or perhaps when the benefits were drying up, decided to seriously pursue a new position.
This is just my opinion, as formed from numerous news stories. YMMV.
lmfao
What a joke Maobama is.
Damn. Good thing I'm fat then.
Should Uncle 0bamao make THAT illegal discrimination also?
Oh there you go again. Ruining my fantasy.
Now that Obama et al are labeling unemployed people as potential victims, the unemployed are further stigmatized. Way to go, Obama!
Let's think this one through for a moment. An AVERAGE engineer makes around 70-90K/yr, or $1,350-$1,750/week before taxes. You are stating, as fact - that he is going to feed his family, make his house payment, provide medical care, pay his utilties, make his car payments on $346/week (maximum unemployment in many states)?
I think you are horribily mistaken - what he will do is lose his house, lose his car, lose his retirement and savings and declare bankdruptcy and hopefully not lose his marriage and self-respect. Anyway you look at it; his life's savings, his retirement, his 401K is gone and likely will never come back in any meaningful way.
Now, a person making ~$20K/yr is in a much better position to economize and survive off welfare benefits.
I remember on a WOF show long time ago, a guy won a ‘Trip to San Francisco’......He was from San Francisco...........
The Civil Right Act over looks the need to be qualified for the job first. Instead Washington, D.C. and government buildings across the nation are filled with un-qualified people who are there because of the color of their skin and little else.
With Obama's back door amnesty program taking jobs from returning veterans, some with disability problems, the jobs market is crowded and there will be more retired Military this next year needing jobs. Is unemployment becoming the new entitlement?
Interesting point.
Another part of the problem, however, is pay: If an engineer making $84,000 a year is laid off and then gets $523 a week in UE benefits, and can only find jobs paying $9.40 an hour, he’s better off not taking the job.
Now, the problem of high paying jobs being harder to get over time is a seperate issue, but as far as the UE benefits issue is concerned, the above scenario keeps a lot of people on the dole.
If you aren't employed, you better find a job FAST if this thing gets legs or you will NEVER work again.
It's also going to promote massive lies and cheating of the employment process.
Sole proprietorships and megacorps will be the final types of businesses left.
Unfortunately, refusing to hire or even just interview someone who has been out of work for an extended period of time, in the economy, is as stupid, short sighted and ignorant as is refusing to do so because of their color or religion, etc.
RE: 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.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Why did they choose the number 15? What’s the significance of this?
He had better not as that is about the only investment that I have that is in the black.
Please tell me this is The Onion and not the NYT.
The Democrats are attempting to create another class of voters who are permanently dependent upon government spending and will therefore reliably vote Democrat.
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.