Obama's bill makes it illegal to discriminate against unemployed

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Obama's bill makes it illegal to discriminate against unemployed
By Pete Kasperowicz - 09/13/11 05:45 PM ET

President Obama's American Jobs Act, which he presented to Congress on Monday, would make it illegal for employers to run advertisements saying that they will not consider unemployed workers, or to refuse to consider or hire people because they are unemployed.

The proposed language is found in a section of the bill titled "Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of an Individual's Status as Unemployed." That section would also make it illegal for employers to request that employment agencies take into account a person's unemployed status.

It would also allow aggrieved job-seekers to seek damages if they have been discriminated against. This provision in particular prompted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to argue that Obama's proposal is aimed at creating a new, special class of people who can sue companies.

"So if you're unemployed, and you go to apply for a job and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer," Gohmert said on the House floor. "You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you're unemployed."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/181323-obamas-jobs-plan-would-make-it-illegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed

[theophilus]

1. Pass. The. Bill. n/t

[dennis4868]

2. That Obama...he is just like Bush

:-(

[DavidDvorkin]

17. He must be primaried.

[Mosaic]

78. Forget about that

I wanted him to primaried, but after much media attention and study on this issue there is no chance. We must win, so forget this meme.

[DavidDvorkin]

116. That was a joke.

[markpkessinger]

118. No, he's not . . .

. . . he's better at knowing when to throw a bone to keep some progressives occupied while he continues to dismantle what is left of liberalism in this country.

[swilton]

120. A non-discrimination bill might mean something

if there were any jobs available to apply for.

[alp227]

3. it IS a problem if you recall how many employers do discriminate

and some have called on monster.com to reject such ads. If republicans reject this bill it really confirms how their main goal is to create a bad enough scenario to make Obama lose in 2012.

[Faygo Kid]

4. I like that they couldn't be flagrant in ads. The rest is unenforceable.

Yeah, like companies don't discriminate against older workers et al even though it's illegal. I won't dignify Gohmert's existence with a comment about him.

[tcaudilllg]

19. Oh it's enforceable all right.

Just a few decent indictments would change the dynamic considerably.

[Donnachaidh]

26. really? And what longterm unemployed person would have the MEANS to be the test case?

This is kabuki theater -- it's unenforceable.

[TrollBuster9090]

29. Never heard of lawyers working pro bono or for a percentage of the take?

It's definitely NOT unenforceable, especially as example cases.
If it's a large company, and there was some kind of a paper trail (ie- the Goldman Sachs "shitty deal" email trail), all you need is for somebody who saw the email to leak the information to the person who didn't get hired. The person who didn't get hired either gets a civil liberties lawyer to work pro-bono, or a blood thirsty lawyer who's willing to sue for a percentage of the take, as many of them do, and you can subpoena the evidence.

Granted, for small businesses it would be very hard to prove. But then again, that's true for EVERY type of hiring discrimination, including discrimination based on race, religion or political views. Laws against THAT kind of discrimination are equally hard to enforce, but not many people would say we shouldn't have them just because they're difficult to enforce.

[No Elephants]

38. "Granted, for small businesses it would be very hard to prove." Bingo. And therein

lies the reason why, as a practical matter, this is virtally unenforceable. By the way, it would be even harder to prove if big businesses were involved. They are more savvy and get newsletters and the like from their employment lawyers keeping them up to date on new laws and advising how to go about things.

"But then again, that's true for EVERY type of hiring discrimination, including discrimination based on race, religion or political views."

Yes, all failure to hire cases are very hard to prove, as well as rarely pursued. If the prospect is told nothing, or simply that the employer hired someone else, which unemployed person will hire a lawyer to do discovery to see if something unwisely written MIGHT be in a {most likely non-existent} paper trail? I very much doubt any lawyer working pro bono or on contingency would go on any wild goose chases of that kind. They have to be careful how they spend their time and money.



As an aside....

"or a blood thirsty lawyer who's willing to sue for a percentage of the take, as many of them do, and you can subpoena the evidence"

Way for Dem to characterize lawyers who risk their own time and money for injured folks who have no other possible way of getting legal representation to seek compensation.

[tcaudilllg]

42. I think it should be tried. Your arguments are unconvincing.

[hack89]

81. With so many job applicants for each opening

the simple fact is that many qualified people will be turned down. It would be impossible to show discrimination against the long term unemployed as long as a company can show that those people were not treated any differently. Secondly, all it takes is for one currently employed applicant to be rejected to allow a company to say they were not discriminating against the long term unemployed.

[CreekDog]

85. Not true anymore than a company that hires one black person is immune from Civil Rights complaints

and i'm not surprised you're against this law.

it's a progressive thing to do.

[hack89]

88. I am in favor of the law

it is important to codify important principles such as non-discrimination. However, from practical experience in hiring people, I know it will be almost impossible for someone to prove such discrimination. We never tell people why they were rejected. We do have documented screening criteria that meet all laws and we can show that every applicant was treated the same.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. It may be hard to prove it for a specific case, but it's certainly easy to demonstrate a pattern and

practice in the same way that civil rights violations are flagged.

If a company receives applications for a 1000 widget makers and only selects currently employed candidates for interviews, that's a flag. If more than half of the qualified applicants were unemployed yet all of the widget makers hired were employed elsewhere at time of hire, that raises a flag.

There are ways to monitor compliance that will at the very least eliminate some of the most flagrant abuses, and since most companies aren't really looking to skirt the laws, it will change some hiring practices -- smart companies will be on the look out for well qualified applicants who are currently unemployed and will set informal goals on hiring of same.

Yes, a lot of discrimination will continue. Can't help that. It takes years to change attitudes.

[TrollBuster9090]

45. "Big businesses are more savvy and get newsletters from their employment lawyers

keeping them up to date on new laws and advising how to go about things."

Ah, I see. So you're saying that a large company that employs a phalanx of lawyers to tell their executives how to avoid litigation would never be stupid enough to leave a paper trail of emails that could be used against them in court. (Like the paper trail of emails between Goldman Sachs executives explaining how they fleeced and defrauded their own customers with Timberwolf, which will undoubtedly be used to either prosecute them in criminal court, or sue them in civil court. Or the paper trail of emails between Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon detailing how they fleeced their own lobby clients and landed Abramoff in jail?) You're absolutely right, I could never see that happening.

But I'm surprised to find out that a Democrat thinks "unenforceable" hiring discrimination laws are just "window dressing." So, you would have been calling the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968 examples of unenforceable window dressing before they were enacted, and dismissed them as just shallow electioneering by Democratic politicians not worthy or support from progressives? Actually, I can see that.

[dotymed]

52. MANY states are now "right to work states."

These employers (what jobs?) do not have to have any reason to hire or fire. Orwellian...right to not work, is more accurate.

[buckrogers1965]

69. It is easy to prove.

Just find out how long all the people they did hire had been out of work. If they only hire from the recently unemployed, you win your case.

[trud]

46. It is unenforceable

When I was laid off from HP, I was given the legally required document showing the ages of people laid off in my group. It was exactly the oldest people. You think I have tens of thousands to contest that? You think lawyers would be thrilled to work for nothing on my case? A "percentage of the take" wouldn't pay what an attorney gets in a week.

[truedelphi]

43. That's my take too.

Unless some group wants to sponsor a run against a specific employer on this.

[CreekDog]

84. same way violations of the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act are

following an investigation, if the government is convinced, they go to bat for the person.

[dotymed]

50. From Eric Holders office? n/t

[No Elephants]

22. Bingo. Unenforceable. As everyone knows, failoure to hire is THE hardest

discrimination case to prove. You have to practically send a letter saying, "In every respect, you were an ideal hire for us, but we chose not to hire you anyway because of your {pick one or more illegal reasons: race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability, age, recent unemployment}."


Since the law is new, a few small companies that do their own hiring (as opposed to using an agency) may get caught before it gets well known. If that.

And that's if the provision even gets passed to begin with.

This is window dressing.

[dotymed]

53. Our U.S. government discriminates too.

The only "job" (and I am a schedule A disabled person) that you can get, even meeting the educational and experience levels, unless you are ex-military, are part-time temporary, no benefits, no future. They discriminate daily against age. If you are 50 and want a decent job in the civil service, you must have a friend or family member behind the scenes.

[Joe Bacon]

58. Not true

I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes. I have NEVER been discriminated against by my employer, which just happens to be Social Security.

[dotymed]

132. Great. I have applied for hundreds of jobs under the

"schedule A" disability, non-competitive hiring process, over 4-5 years. I have heart failure but cannot get my disability. It may be more accurate (and polite) to say that it hasn't been true in your case.

I have met or exceeded the qualifications for each job I have applied for.

[Arkana]

123. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing, and I'd much rather my government

show some concern for the blatant discrimination businesses are showing the long-term unemployed.

I really hope you don't coach a sports team or anything. "Well, guys, I gotta say...our next opponent's just way too good. You oughta just mail it in next week--at least that way we'll have an excuse."

[astral]

127. that's not what they do. They just say they selected someone else.

Which is the truth. You can pick who you hire and tell the rest of the candidates that is what happened. It may be the employed applicant is more qualified or more desirable as a choice. You can't enforce this law unless you tell employers EXACTLY who they have to hire.

At this point I'll believe such a law will be passed next! (Please don't mistake this statement for an endorsement on my part.)

[TBA]

5. Should add bad credit to it.

Several states have passed laws making it illegal for bad credit to be the basis of not hiring. These laws except the obvious... jobs that require the handling of large sums of money, etc.

[gateley]

6. They shouldn't even be able to check credit these days -- too

many people have lost their good ratings due to the economy and job market. It's really unfair.

[pauldg0]

30. They have been....

My son was denied a job due to his poor credit after being laid off from Lear for a year.

. No worker left behind NWLB funded his training to be a wind turbine tech in Michigan.
. When it came to interviews it came down to his credit when talking to Siemens. They denied him a job.
. He was in the top five of his graduating class.
. Obviously it pissed me off!

[dotymed]

54. Even if you are employed, or make a decent retirement, etc.

The credit companies purposely undermine your credit rating in order to (often) triple the % rate on your loans. If you are 1 day late on the payment of one card, (my Mother was hospitalized and and her credit score, after a one day late payment, went from 850 to 650) so they could raise their % rate from 6% to 29%. This is the corporate states of america. The corporations, banks,etc.., run our country, own our politicians and make policy. Has Eric Holder (really) and his office done anything (at all) to stop any of this? He does what his boss tells him to do which is go after peace activists and those who seek Democracy. IMO, this ALL just pre-election posturing. Man, "we shall know them by their works," still means nothing when it comes to party. How fucking sad.

Enforce the "free speech zones" and protect the RW teahadists. America is just a memory.

[metalbot]

65. That's not how credit scores work

There is no fathomable way that your credit score would drop from 850 to 650 because of a 1 day late payment, especially since 1 day late payments aren't even reported to a credit agency. Now, her bank could easily have a policy that jacks credit card rates she made a late payment, but that would have zero effect on her credit score.

The only way this could be possible would be if her credit score was 850, you hadn't checked it for a while, and shortly after the jack in rates, you checked it and found it to be 650. That could be related to any number of factors - carrying to high of a debt burden relative to your income will drop your credit score. Being 1 day late on a payment? It won't even show up. Credit agencies only track 30, 60, 90+ late payments. If her bank put a ding on her credit score for being 1 day late (as opposed to being 31 days late), then it's blatantly illegal, and you can fix the credit score.

[a2liberal]

96. Thanks

I was preparing to write basically this reply (a lot less eloquently) and than I saw you already replied :) Also, I didn't know that reporting less than 30 days late is illegal, I thought they just didn't do it. But it being illegal makes much more sense.

[stockholmer]

104. nicely put, good reply

[onpatrol98]

125. Even the military now checks credit of new hires...

[jpbollma]

7. I work in human resources

and I haven't heard of credit checks being used for hiring besides certain obvious financial positions. Is this a new evil that they are rolling out now?

[Tx4obama]

10. Do a search on Yahoo.com for ....

employers checking applicants credit

TONS of results come up.

[MsFlorida]

14. used to be in HR

they've been doing this for years. another repuglican evil. I hate this stuff

[tilsammans]

15. I applied for a low-wage job at the mall, and . . .

. . . had to sign forms to agree to a credit check. WTF? The job I applied for didn't involve handling money. :wtf:

[No Elephants]

23. Credit checks have been used by prospective employers for years.

[kurtzapril4]

73. They've been doing it for 10 years at least. n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

97. Seriously? You're THAT out of the loop?!

Fucking RESTAURANTS are even doing credit checks for prospective employees now. It happened to me.

[The Genealogist]

105. I've actually had forms that include permitting the employer to check credit score

So yes, some employers do.

[jmowreader]

113. I would say it's well over 50 percent who do

[kestrel91316]

106. I've been hearing about it for at least 5 years.

[markpkessinger]

117. It's common practice in law firms . . .

. . . even for clerical/administrative positions.

[dkf]

8. Once I saw the muni bond provision I knew this bill was DOA.

It's just a vehicle for political discussion and posturing. So sad.

[TheWraith]

11. Either one can take a strong and bold stance, or one can compromise to get something passed...

But we can't do both.

[dkf]

12. You know who would be the first ones against this? States and municipalities who are already hurt.

Just suggesting this adds doubt to anyone thinking about buying a muni bond.

[TrollBuster9090]

31. Why can't you do both? Never heard of poison pill legislation?

That's where you put something in a bill that either forces the opposition to vote for it, or vote against it and look bad.
The Republicans either vote for it, or look like they're against making it easier for the unemployed to find jobs, thus causing the unemployed to vote against them. It's a win-win. (Which is probably why the feckless Senate Democrats WON'T do it. They'll probably allow the Republicans to strip that provision out in committee.)

[MilesColtrane]

36. But...but, when Obama does make strong proposals, unpopular with...

Congress, we can't call him the "Cave Man" or "Conceeder in Chief"!

[Yupster]

13. Paid for by revenue increases

made it DOA.

Has the president not learned yet that the congress is not going to raise taxes?

The muni bond provision is just awful though.

[Odin2005]

9. ABOUT DAMN TIME!

[tblue]

16. Good one, Mr. President!!!

Gohmert is a clown.

[Synicus Maximus]

18. About 12 or 15 years ago we were looking for a tech and this guy

applied. He had very good qualification but had not been employed for 6 months or so. So after the basic questions to establish he knew what he was talking about I asked why he had been unemployed for 6 months. He was 50 or 52 years old at the time and had just spent a couple of months training and about 3 months riding a bike across country. They started with their back wheels in the surf at LA and ended with their front wheels in the surf at Charleston. He told us the story, I looked at my partner and we hired him on the spot because neither of us could ride a bike across the country. He was one of the best if not the best tech we ever had.

[elocs]

20. Easy to accuse, hard to prove unless the potential employer is a moron.

Like all employment discrimination a smart employer can find a way to do what they want to do.

[Capitalocracy]

21. But at least it would be codified.

No more "no unemployed need apply" ads. It's a move in the right direction, and a rare opportunity for me to be happy about something Obama's doing.

[Left Coast2020]

25. Sounds good, but as I said before......

...its all hotair unless he truly fights for it. And yes I'm pissed that they can check your credit score to determine if you are employable. It really sucks.

[dotymed]

60. This will not hurt the R/W'ers, It will just "prove" that now,

the gub'mint is telling them who they can and can't hire. A GREAT new tool to blame outsourcing on.

Americans are too dumb to realize that jobs are outsourced only to use slave labor to make the CEO's obscenely wealthy, yet they have to pay no taxes.

Yesterday on FB, i had an old classmate make derogatory comments against my Thom Hartmann link. He was an idiot. I explained (patiently at first) my reasons and the truth that is Thom Hartmann. This fool blamed everything on the poor.

He repeatedly kept posting insane, obvious lies. I debated his stoopidity for hours. Finally, after going in circles and him denying all proven logic, I asked him to go away. I told him that no matter how many lies he shouted,

it would not change the truth. He called me a "fucking coward" for not debating him. I completely disproved every RW talking point he think(?) of. These people are insane. They have no reasoning capabilities.

"taxes are insane, the wealthy pay the greatest % of taxes, don't pay attention to the % look at the dollar amount, everything he earned should go to him and his family only...I honestly think that we need to create two countries.

Even our government does not believe in the United states. Ask Rick Perry.

[Waiting For Everyman]

40. Not so hard to prove by numbers of unemployed applicants hired or rejected.

[hack89]

82. Since companies are not legally required to track such information

it actually would be very hard. No smart HR department would have such data lying around to one day bite them in the ass.

[No Elephants]

24. This is Obama campaigning, trying to get back cred with the left.

And, obviously, it works with some.

In reality, though, either this will not pass at all or it will be unenforceable as a practical matter.

[kurtzapril4]

77. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner. I KNEW that he was going to start swinging back to the left. I knew it.

But it's the thought that counts, isn't it?

[Flatulo]

27. This is something we can be proud of. But realistically, it will be tough

to prove, like age discrimination.

[SoapBox]

28. K & R

[Deep13]

32. I AM TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL.

Sorry for the caps, but before I was only in favor of it. I want to convey how absolutely necessary I feel this is.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

33. We need public opinion and numbers to pass this bill.

Start using the people to force them with shame.

[Deep13]

34. Go ahead, R.s, vote against jobs for voters. nt

[Hugabear]

35. Having a hard time understanding the rationale for discriminating against the unemployed

I know it exists, I've seen it posted in job postings. But I don't understand why any employer would discriminate against someone because they're unemployed, especially with unemployment levels so high.

[Deep13]

37. They're slackers!

If they really wanted a job, they could find one. If they were such good employees, why did the last bosses let them go instead of someone else? :sarcasm:

Maybe they are afraid that having been out of the loop a long time, they will not be as useful as employees. Maybe they are afraid they have lost the habit of working.

But the most likely explanation, and I just thought of it, is to prevent receiving hundreds of applications for every opening.

[No Elephants]

39. First, because they can. Second, the assumption is that, if you were, say, the most valuable

person in your department, you would not have been the one they let go. (Many fire by last hired, some fire by seniority. And sometimes a product line was phased out or whatever. However, total accuracy is s beside the point. They are playing the odds.)

With an employed person, there is a strong presumption that some employer thinks he or she is worth keeping on. An unemployed person is, in theory at least, more of a wild card.

Since there are many more good people looking for jobs than there are job openings, it's an employers" market. Current employment is one way to cut down that stack of resumes very quickly.

Besides, in the corporate culture, you do play the odds and take as few risks as possible. No one is going to know if you threw Einstein's resume in the trash.

But, your superiors on the corporate ladder are likely to find out if you hired a bozo.

In that case, you'd better have his or her perfect resume and your interview notes to flash at them, or you'll be looking for employment yourself. In fact, that may happen even if you do have the perfect resume to flash at them. So, you take as few risks as possible.

[Waiting For Everyman]

41. Whereas the employed job seekers show lack of concern for the current employer.

Check. That's a much better way to go.

As you said, they do it "because they CAN". Not because it makes any sense whatsoever.

[ck4829]

44. Break the vicious cycle. K&R.

[leftyladyfrommo]

47. It's illegal to discrminate because of age, too.

But just try to find a job if you are over 50.

Just try to even get an interview.

[wordpix]

75. +1000 and you can never prove it

You would have to get the names, educational status and work experience of every applicant you're competing against to do that.

[onehandle]

48. This House won't pass it. nt

[dotymed]

49. What about running a credit check?

That should have always been illegal when seeking a job. These employers (of course) can skirt this bill by running said credit check. If you have been unemployed for a while, your credit tends to go to hell. Of course, they don't know this.

[TK421]

129. I never understood why that was ever allowed...it is pure bullshit

[BenzoDia]

51. Put pressure on your representatives to support this:

Call or e-mail them.

http://www.americanjobsact.com/

[loudsue]

55. Yup. Like the Greedy Ole Party is going to let any such thing get passed.

Nice posturing, though.

[COLGATE4]

56. No way in hell is this enforceable. They just won't put it in writing.

Go and try and prove that you didn't get the job because you were unemployed - good luck. Just window dressing. Nothing of substance.

[Recursion]

61. Actual enforcement against racial discrimination is hard, too

Though this won't have the same enforcement mechanism since it's not a protected category under the civil rights act; still, there are decades of experience they can draw on. What seems to work well is busting one company and it usually makes a lot of the rest fall in line.

The point is HR departments will make a policy, and that will have some effect.

[DaveJ]

57. Should be good for several reasons

Even though it might be sometimes unenforceable, it at least 1) creates the general perception that the practice is indeed wrong, and 2) should result in increasing the average income in the U.S., if people are allowed to wait for the best job. 3) It will also win a few votes. 4) It will also allow people to be unemployed... if we are to become a society of automation where we can work less then working less should be allowed without being marginalized. 5) It should also eliminate those annoying times when you have to sit there and explain every "gap" in your resume.

When I was unemployed 10 years ago I got some low paying temp jobs right away, thinking it was a temporary pay decrease then I'd jump back into my real profession. But no, once you lower your pay most employers think that you are out of the profession. And you have to start at the bottom again. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but that's the perception. I should have waited for the right job.


Edit to add points 3, 4, and 5.

[Javaman]

59. Don't worry you can count on the party of death to filibuster it. nt

[DirkGently]

62. A small, but important piece of the puzzle. We MUST stem the tide of foreclosures.

[AllyCat]

63. Ridiculous we need a LAW to help this happen. Glad it's in there. Too bad the Dems will back down

and give the Repukes everything they want.

[FreedomVoice]

64. One issue I see

Is that this will open up the companies that are ACTUALLY HIRING PEOPLE to come under fire with more lawsuits, some of them being from unqualified applicants that are just mad they didn't get the job. Will cost the companies money, and make them a little more cautious when they are deciding to hire more people or not.

[buckrogers1965]

71. It will be easy to hire 50% long term unemployed

And easily win any lawsuit. Should be able to get any lawsuit dismissed easily.

[kestrel91316]

107. So it's perfectly ok with you that companies continue to be able to

ADVERTIZE that they don't want unemployed to apply?????

[Overseas]

66. K&R. Yes please!

[russspeakeasy]

67. What an empty, unenforceable law....

:evilfrown:

[buckrogers1965]

68. How they stack the deck against older people

They fly you in at 4am. Then they run an intensive 8-10 hour interview process on you, double and triple teaming you in hour long shifts. By 1pm the older people are very tired and tank the afternoon interviews.

[wordpix]

76. employers don't need to do all that

They just look at your resume, see when you graduated or began work, and then don't call you for the interview

[buckrogers1965]

80. Well, yeah

But we do get the occasional interview still.

[DaveJ]

86. Everyone is discriminated against for something

If you're young they assume you should get paid less and have less authority too, usually. Nobody gets treated fairly, except at the best companies, maybe the top 10%.

Also with my age and experience I feel I have enough skills to start my own company. Frankly I'm getting tired of owners taking all the profit. Self employment is the way to go, IMO.

[onpatrol98]

126. +1

[buckrogers1965]

128. Not everyone can run their own business.

Especially technical people with a lack of people skills.

I've been taking college courses to improve my writing and public speaking skills.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. This is a good thing. He's a good man. I just wish he were tough as nails, and SHOWED IT.

Is that wrong of me?

[NOLALady]

93. Maybe

He knows that the angry black president is scarier than the weak black President.

[kestrel91316]

108. I think HE is the one who is scared: of ever even once being labelled an

"angry black man".

Sigh. Sadly, an angry black man is exactly what we have needed for quite some time.

[Mosaic]

111. That is so fucking racist

We need to burn that meme to ground, angry white man, angry brown man, angry black man. No freaking difference!

[kestrel91316]

119. You know that. I know that. But THEY will be happy to use it, to great effect I might add.

Obama knows it, too. So he stays cool and doesn't get riled up.

Sigh. I would truly LOVE to see him riled.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

131. He doesn't have to act out of control. He has to be PRESIDENTIAL.

He's behaving like an assistant of the Repukes.

[JenniferJuniper]

72. Hard to believe this is necessary, but it is, and in a big way

I've been job hunting recently because my job is going overseas next year. First question every single employment agency or prospective employer asks me is "Are you currently employed?" And when I say "yes", the response is usually something like "okay, good".

[wordpix]

74. "You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you're unemployed."

That's right, and no one should be discriminated against for that OR the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their age, their sex, their marital status or no. of children...

[russspeakeasy]

100. Dreamer....

:hi:

[joeybee12]

79. Good...let's see if this stays in the final product...nt

[ProSense]

83. UPDATED: The American Jobs Act: Greater than Expected Impact

UPDATED: The American Jobs Act: Greater than Expected Impact

[KansDem]

87. I never did understand why unemployed workers were a "no-no" for hiring...

I mean, "worker without a job wants a job"...really? Who would have thought? :sarcasm:

Anyone care to enlighten me? :shrug:

[Incitatus]

89. One concern may be that you are taking the job because you were laid

off from your career job and as soon as you can get back into your field you will, leaving them with an empty position and a loss for whatever training costs there may have been.

[DaveJ]

90. Money Of Course!

Greed.

1) Less costly to pick among a smaller pool of applicants.
2) It gives employers an excuse to pay less to LT unemployed.
3) Makes people desperate enough to take any crappy job.
4) Easier to promote fear of job loss in the workplace.

[hack89]

94. Several reasons - some good some bad

1. Many jobs involving sales and marketing depend on industry contacts and networking. The fear is that one's network of contacts will no longer be current after a long period of unemployment.

2. Many IT fields like internet security are fast moving - it does not take long for your knowledge to become stale.

3. Many companies are using the recession to upgrade their workforce to position themselves for the recover. They want to hire top performers. They assume that any company laying off people will not fire their top performers.

[Johnson20]

91. Sorely Needed

This is a stupid hiring practice.
And yes 1st post.

[Incitatus]

95. welcome to DU

:hi:

[mvd]

92. K&R

Increases hiring and does away with a major obstacle for many. If the Repukes won't paas this Act, then Americans should notice how they aren't serious about jobs.

[orbitalman]

98. Gohmert is then a special class of Congressionl ass...

just another rep to get rid of. I wonder if he was employed B4 his election??

[blindpig]

99. Why not just ban unemployment?

It should be a right to be able to support oneself and one's family, to contribuite to society.

In capitalist society unemployment is a necessary tool for keeping wages low that the capitalist might profit.

Pretty fuck up way to run a society.

[Xithras]

101. Bad headline. It does NOT make it illegal to "discriminate" against the unemployed.

Using the term "bans discrimination" makes people falsely think that the bill requires employers to place both employed and unemployed applicants on equal footing. That is not the case. The law doesn't make it illegal to be biased against the unemployed, but merely bans their exclusion.

I have two applicants for a job. Applicant A is currently employed, and has 5 years experience in the field. Applicant B has seven years experience in the field, but has been unemployed a year. Both applicants are brought in for interviews, and Applicant A is selected. In the hiring notes, I enter "Applicant A is currently employed in the field and is therefore the more desireable candidate."

Have I broken the law? Can Applicant B sue me? Can all of the Applicant B's sue me if I have 100 open positions and give 99 jobs to currently employed people, because I "prefer" people who are currently working?

The answer is NO. The proposed law would NOT be violated. It merely prohibits employers and headhunters from excluding them from consideration, or from denying them access to a job solely because of their employment status. While the law bans employers from using employment status as a hiring criteria, it does NOT prohibit them from using employment status as a weighted factor in candidate selection. They can still "prefer" candidates who are employed.

While this law will get rid of the blatant exclusionary statements in some job ads, it will do nothing to actually prevent companies seeking employed candidates from hiring ONLY employed candidates.

[obxhead]

102. This, as well as every other job stimulus, will be left out of the bill.

The only thing Obama will get to sign into law is tax cuts.

[TBF]

103. The smarter way to handle this is to give tax breaks for companies

who hire over 40 and unemployed folks.

Any half-assed HR person knows how to "file" a resume that has gaps (ie hasn't worked in awhile) or lots of experience (chances are they're older). They are going to interview who they want.

Better to give them incentives to do the right thing, then hope to catch them at wrong-doing.

[The Genealogist]

109. I like this law

The reich wing likes to screech "Go get a job, slacker! There all all kinds of jobs out there! You're just a lazy pig! Entitlement Entitlement Entitlement." Here is a bill that just might help a group of people who need a little help getting a job. And who is already railing against getting more people more access to job opportinuties? The reich wing, of course!

Maybe it is just window dressing and unenforceable. At least it is a small bone to throw to hopelessly unemployed people. Perhaps the glint of optimism will help at least a few people.

[russspeakeasy]

110. This bill is DOA.

:evilfrown:

[russspeakeasy]

112. ...and birds can only make left turns....

:evilgrin: this thing is going nowhere...

[jmowreader]

115. It would be nice if this was easily enforceable...

but I like the "you cannot advertise this" provision.

The Republicans are going to complain about this, so our leadership needs to go into the 2012 campaign season with the theme of, "The Republicans care about getting rid of ME, so they've stopped caring about YOU."

[louslobbs]

121. The only special class of "people," are the corporations that continually seek deregulation in order

to do what they please, when they please. Regulations and laws protect us from the "corporate people," who would otherwise do more harm to the average worker than they already do, attempt to do, or do covertly. Republican Louie Gohmert is nothing more than a defender of corporations and the wealthy working against the Constitution and the Will of the "real people." His words mean nothing, he has no integrity and he exists simply to feed off the corporate teet while doing their bidding. Gohmert is just another of the Republican ilk that cheers the death of a 30 year old man without insurance ("let him die")and applauds Republican Rick Parry's record of killing people in his state using the death penalty. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these people are sick, they desire only power and money, and the destruction of anything that gets in the way of these corporate goals. The only reason there has to be a laws enacted to stop the special class of "corporate people" from discriminating against the average worker, is because if you don't regulate their behavior, they do things like discriminating against the unemployed. Imagine that, "corporate citizens" discriminating against the unemployed who need employment and having to be forced through a law not to act in a way that discriminates against "regular" unemployed people. Why, a corporation would never discriminate against African Americans, Jews, Gays, Muslims, the handicap-able and others if we simply let them do what they want without any regulations holding them back. They'd never take advantage of the average citizen if only they could do what they want when they want......we can trust them......(Big Time Sarcasm). No, Louie Gohmert is one of "them" and cannot be trusted, he is a Republican/tea bagging/corporate operative who caters to the 2% at the top, the corporations and the wealthy, while doing more and more harm to the poor and middle class. Ghomert is just another traitor to the constitution and America, he has no integrity, no compassion and no authority to lecture the rest of us about a "special class" of citizen when he represents the most special class of citizens on the face of the earth, the corporate and wealthy citizens. Gohmert, just another pathetic piece of Republican excrement.
Lou

[crim son]

122. How in hell are they going to enforce this one?

So, advertising policy changes. Big deal.

[Swede Atlanta]

124. It is a nice thought but..........

Okay, you could quickly identify and prosecute cases where employers openly discriminated by way of statements of qualifications, etc. (i.e. the proverbial "if you have been unemployed longer than 6 months you need not apply"). But proving such a case is very very difficult. You almost have to have inside information in order to form the basis of a challenge to an employment decision and there would need to be fairly explicit evidence such as an e-mail. Older workers, women, etc. have found it difficult to challenge discrimination for years.

Add on top of that that if an employer can't state flat out the unemployed but will in fact discriminate when it comes to making employment decisions, the unemployed are wasting their time applying for those jobs. They aren't going to be hired anyway.

So it is a catch-22, you would like to find a way to make such discrimination in fact illegal but the only area where you are likely to succeed is eliminating job postings and advertising that openly state that bias. The result is you will have people spinning their wheels applying for jobs for which they will not be hired because they are unemployed.

It is nice window dressing but there isn't much to see here...move along.

[Le Taz Hot]

130. I appreciate the intent

but, let's face it, it's unenforceable. It's illegal to discriminate against people for all kinds of reasons but they still do it. Virtually IMPOSSIBLE to prove.