Obama proposes banning discrimination against the unemployed

[Rochester]

"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.

(continued...)"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-proposes-letting-jobless-sue-discrimination-191042168.html

[sakabatou]

1. This is what we need.

I'm sick of the "You need to be currently employed before we hire you" BS.

[Demeter]

2. Politician, Heal Thyself

If the White House dumps abuse on the unemployed, and sells them out in the budget, why should Business behave any differently?

[cutlassmama]

3. Enforcing it will be hard, but it's about time. Good idea.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. What is the purpose of weeding out people who don't have jobs?

Is it a lazy assumption that the person was spoiled goods?

[dkf]

5. From the article

"There is evidence that when people are out of work for an extended period, their skills atrophy and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find new work."

[ck4829]

6. So let's keep them from ever getting a new job! That will put them on the right track!

:sarcasm:

[dkf]

7. Is it really better if we turn every job offer into a potential sue job?

Does this encourage corporations to hire? With 100 or 1000 applications for each job there are a lot of people who will think they were discriminated against I am sure.

[ck4829]

8. It doesn't encourage the long term unemployed when they have to jump through this extra hoop

It is drastic but something needs to be done. The unemployed don't just disappear when employers start making ads telling them they shouldn't even bother applying.

[dkf]

9. Maybe they won't get the opportunity to be turned down.

What happens if employers don't even open it up but just snatch already employed people from other firms?

[dkf]

10. Do you know the lengths corporations and people will go through to avoid being sued?

The potential cost of each new hire has just gone up if each posting needs to be defended by a lawyer.

Moreover a person who has been unemployed for a long period has no downside in attempting to sue if it's on contingency. Then it goes to how desperate lawyers are for more work. How scary is that to the person who is trying to determine whether they need to hire or not?

[ck4829]

11. Somebody is going to end up worse one way or another

This legislation shouldn't be about sticking it to employers who won't hire the unemployed anymore then it should be opposed just to stick it to the lawyers.

Somebody is going to end up hurt; it passes, the employers; it doesn't or this provision is removed, the unemployed.

Question is, who do we think can't afford to lose money, opportunities, and their part in our nation's economy?

[dkf]

12. I don't think it's a matter of employers winning vs the unemployed.

I just see a scenario where the situation of the unemployed is WORSE if this law is implemented.

[Kat45]

13. Age discrimination is illegal and it still happens all the time

Because it's quite difficult to prove, I don't think all that many sue. I think discrimination against the unemployed will be equally difficult to prove when there isn't an ad stating it.