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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-164 next last
To: reaganaut1
Directive 10-289, anyone?
81
posted on
09/26/2011 1:17:41 PM PDT
by
RWB Patriot
("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
To: reaganaut1
Mr. Obamas jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed. OK, how about if they are registered DEMOCRATS?
82
posted on
09/26/2011 1:19:35 PM PDT
by
Mark
(Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
To: reaganaut1
This moron won’t be happy until every business in the country closes its doors permanently.
Just go around applying for work and when you are turned down simply file a lawsuit. Then settle out of court, rinse and repeat.
83
posted on
09/26/2011 1:25:17 PM PDT
by
headstamp 2
(Time to move forward not to the center.)
To: Beagle8U
I might agree with you if you are not counting the under-employed. My wife just got laid off. In this economy I would expect that it will take a very long time to find something even remotely close to what she did before.
So would you hold it against her if she volunteered for a charity and wrote a technical book during her unemployment time???? Would you not hire her, just because her company went under through no fault of hers and she ends up out of work for a year?
To: reaganaut1
This idea is brilliant! Just think of the enormous job growth in the categories of trial lawyers, paralegals, judges and law clerks! I bow before Obama’s superior intellect!
85
posted on
09/26/2011 1:28:16 PM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
To: reaganaut1
This would make me want to hire someone. Sure. I could get sued just be interviewing prospective employees? Are they nuts?
86
posted on
09/26/2011 1:28:43 PM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: reaganaut1
So now wanting to rid the nation of unemployment could be in the same category as ethnic cleansing?
To: Liberty1970
It would take several decades of solid conservative rule to undo all the crap this guy is doing
88
posted on
09/26/2011 1:32:01 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
To: dsthompson
HR officers are not the most logical.
The view is if you don’t have a job, you are a loser. In other words it is better to quit a job rather than be laid off.
89
posted on
09/26/2011 1:33:49 PM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: reaganaut1
It's none of the governments business. Why hire someone who's lazy and milked the system for all it's worth when they can get someone who really wants a job?
President Zero should just stay out of it, or he'll screw it up like he's screwed up everything else.
To: Raycpa
Obama strikes again. In his usual fashion, he will accomplish the opposite of what he states. Firms will either hire no one or expand operations overseas.
91
posted on
09/26/2011 1:37:50 PM PDT
by
Truth29
To: driftdiver
If you are an engineer, and take a job delivering pizza's, you will more than likely never work as an engineer again.
That is a bad sign to employers. It means you are desperate.
92
posted on
09/26/2011 1:40:58 PM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: reaganaut1
We can't discriminate because of race but we CAN discriminate because of party affiliation.
I REFUSE to hire anybody that is a liberal/socialist/marxist/obama boot licker.
Wanna job? Good luck!
93
posted on
09/26/2011 1:43:40 PM PDT
by
unixfox
(Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
To: RushIsMyTeddyBear
Everything that occurs anywhere at any time is scrutinzed for opportunistic use by the O reelection team.
94
posted on
09/26/2011 1:45:21 PM PDT
by
firebrand
(Why didn't they impeach him? He's now totally out of control.)
To: redgolum
Not in this economy. I’d rather have someone who will work.
95
posted on
09/26/2011 1:47:00 PM PDT
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: reaganaut1
so the hard working paying taxes , white ,normal, Christian male will , or is the only one who is not protected.
hell why not just make the law to discriminate them and have done with it , instead of this protective crap
96
posted on
09/26/2011 1:48:56 PM PDT
by
manc
(Hannity the fraud he admitted he's socially liberal he's no conservative marriage=1man+ 1 woman)
To: reaganaut1
Maybe his next advise will be to have the Poor sue the rich and take this spread the wealth around to the next level. Each of us can sue a person that has more money than we do and collect damages that will make us equal.....
hmmmmm interesting....
97
posted on
09/26/2011 1:50:00 PM PDT
by
Typical_Whitey
(Ask a liberal to explain how tax increases create jobs in America)
To: reaganaut1
This is bad, but what I really liked about the proposal was that anyone over 50 (I think it was 50, might have been 55) that gets hired in at a lower wage than what they were let go at the state would use the unemployment insurance to make up the difference in their wages.
As a business owner does that mean I can hire an old guy who is laid off with a PhD, pay him minimum wage, and let the state pick up the rest of his/her salary?? Hell I could hire 5 guys for the same price as one younger one!! /s
98
posted on
09/26/2011 1:52:13 PM PDT
by
Abathar
(Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
To: GeronL
white straight normal, hard working white males.
honestly I don’t see why they can’;t get rid of these special protected classes and just say discrimination is alright against what I just wrote.
99
posted on
09/26/2011 1:54:27 PM PDT
by
manc
(Hannity the fraud he admitted he's socially liberal he's no conservative marriage=1man+ 1 woman)
To: Buckeye McFrog
Businesses will no longer hire anyone full-time. They will hire them all as hourly temps whom they can let go on a days notice. Only the ones that have really proven their value will be considered for full-time employment.Actually, a lot of business are using temps only - forever. The trial lawyers make it too hard to fire anyone, so making people permanent isn't worth it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-164 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson