Obama Jobs Bill proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

[Conservative]

For example, in certain industries being unemployed for a prolonged period leads to erosion of skills.

Businesses that don't want to hire unemployed workers, don't have that policy, because they want to be mean, they are acting in what they feel is their best business interests..Who is Obama to say what critieria is the best for their business?

who is the administration to say where a business can build an assembly plant, say, for airliners?

Sorry about laws to protect workers. You're the unpatriotic, bottom line only marketing wizard who outsources to India to save, as it turns out, NOTHING, including your business, when the demand disappears. Typical shortsighted selfish Pub douchebag. Hoping for your recovery, functional total A-hole.

Laws to protect workers? Please show me what 'law to protect a worker' states I must build my factory where YOU say, instead of where I say?

you need to quit drinking. Your posts are even less intelligible than normal.

 

[Rocko]

So people who are unemployed SHOULD be discriminated against? I hadn't heard about them suing- I must listen to off the wall Pub haters more...

For example, in certain industries being unemployed for a prolonged period leads to erosion of skills.

Businesses that don't want to hire unemployed workers, don't have that policy, because they want to be mean, they are acting in what they feel is their best business interests..Who is Obama to say what critieria is the best for their business?

Actuaslly, the discrimination against those that are unemp;loyed have nothing to do with erosion of skills.

It has to do with dedication...and I dont necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.

Employers are well aware that if they hire one who is unemployed, that person is taking the position out of need for a job; not out of desire for the opportunity itself. This is not always the case, but more often than not it is.

So if they hire that person and then a true oipportunity in their field of choice arises, they are likely to leave, costing that empooyer time of training and a loss of momentum.

On the other hand, if an employer hires one who is already employed, it is likely that the empoloyee is accepting the job for the right reasons.

I do not know where I stand on this....but to be frank...with unemployment at 9.2%, I think we need to put a stop to it for the time being.

Maybe an employer, would choose not to hire someone looking for work in a specific field, where the necisary skills may have eroded over time, because that worker has been unemployed for a long time......Thats just one senario though...

As a general rule, if a business feels something is in their best interest, and the government disagrees, the business is usually the one thats right.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Cool.

WTF? Don't apply for a job if your unemployed?



What we seeing by these pricks is another attempt to completely undermine labor.

They should be ashamed.

Vast conspiracy?

Dude, invest in padded cells.. these fuckers are becoming more unhinged on a daily basis.

 

[Sallow]

Cool.

WTF? Don't apply for a job if your unemployed?



What we seeing by these pricks is another attempt to completely undermine labor.

They should be ashamed.

Vast conspiracy?

Yeah..basically.

Converting an employee to an independent contractor | Attorneys of Top Floor Legal

Hiring freezes and layoffs are not the only way to cut costs. Cutting hours of your employees and making them an independent contractor may not only save you money but allow your personnel to retain a stream of income. WARNING: A common mistake made by employers or any business owners is to consider someone as an independent contractor when in reality they are legally considered an employee. California, like the IRS, has a nice list of factors in order to determine this status. See California Department of Industrial Relation’s faq.

Why does this all matter? Well, whether or not they are employees or independent contractors determines what labor code statutes apply including tax issues, overtime, breaks, and most importantly–LIABILITY. If you do plan on making some of these changes in your staff, do not make the mistake of getting these arrangements in writing with a working knowledge of what your rights and liabilities are with these changes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03mon2.html

In December, the Justice Department settled an antitrust suit with Lucasfilm over an egregious “no solicitation” agreement with rival Pixar. The studios regularly compete for digital animators, highly skilled professionals. But Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed not to cold-call each other’s employees and to notify each other when making an offer to the other company’s employee. They also agreed that if one tried to poach one of the other’s employees and the rival counteroffered, the poacher would not increase the pay package above the initial bid.

Bush Overtime Rules Slammed - CBS News

CBS/AP) Disputing Bush administration estimates, a labor-backed think tank said Wednesday that new federal rules will remove overtime protections for at least 6 million U.S. workers.

The study by the Economic Policy Institute was released a day after three former Labor Department officials said in a report requested by the AFL-CIO that "large numbers" of employees entitled to overtime would no longer get it when the new rules take effect Aug. 23.

 

[Jarhead]

Cool.

WTF? Don't apply for a job if your unemployed?



What we seeing by these pricks is another attempt to completely undermine labor.

They should be ashamed.

I agree with the irony.

I disagree with your assumption.

It is a very difficult situation.

An employer will ask someone why they want the job. They will give the right answer...not necessarily the truth...but the right answer..

"becuase I see it as a great opportunity to enahnce my career"...or something like that.

And then the enmployer says...but you were making 100K. This is more of an entry level job that warrants no more than 50K. I cant afford to pay you 100K....why would you take 50K?

And the employee will give the right answer....not necessarily the truth...but the right answer...

"it is not about money with me. It is about opportunity"

And the employer hires him. 2 months later the employee hears of a job that warrants his experience and offering 100K....so he leaves.

I have seen things like this happen regualrly during the last couple of years. It proves to be very costly for the employer...and it creates a serious loss in momentum.

Now...bear in mind...the employee LIED to the employer on the interview.

So the employer is at fault for wanting to avoid this from happening?

I am on the fence with this....

 

[francoHFW]

Stupid insults instead of knowledge from the dupes, as always. The computer is the information miracle. Try using it. And forget Fox, Rush, Savage, Murdoch and Rev. Moon's rags, RW blogs, etc. Pure misinformation and hate, dumbazzes.

 

[Sallow]

Cool.

WTF? Don't apply for a job if your unemployed?



What we seeing by these pricks is another attempt to completely undermine labor.

They should be ashamed.

I agree with the irony.

I disagree with your assumption.

It is a very difficult situation.

An employer will ask someone why they want the job. They will give the right answer...not necessarily the truth...but the right answer..

"becuase I see it as a great opportunity to enahnce my career"...or something like that.

And then the enmployer says...but you were making 100K. This is more of an entry level job that warrants no more than 50K. I cant afford to pay you 100K....why would you take 50K?

And the employee will give the right answer....not necessarily the truth...but the right answer...

"it is not about money with me. It is about opportunity"

And the employer hires him. 2 months later the employee hears of a job that warrants his experience and offering 100K....so he leaves.

I have seen things like this happen regualrly during the last couple of years. It proves to be very costly for the employer...and it creates a serious loss in momentum.

Now...bear in mind...the employee LIED to the employer on the interview.

So the employer is at fault for wanting to avoid this from happening?

I am on the fence with this....

And completely not relevant to the topic.

Apples and oranges really.

That's a different issue.

 

[Jarhead]

Cool.

WTF? Don't apply for a job if your unemployed?



What we seeing by these pricks is another attempt to completely undermine labor.

They should be ashamed.

I agree with the irony.

I disagree with your assumption.

It is a very difficult situation.

An employer will ask someone why they want the job. They will give the right answer...not necessarily the truth...but the right answer..

"becuase I see it as a great opportunity to enahnce my career"...or something like that.

And then the enmployer says...but you were making 100K. This is more of an entry level job that warrants no more than 50K. I cant afford to pay you 100K....why would you take 50K?

And the employee will give the right answer....not necessarily the truth...but the right answer...

"it is not about money with me. It is about opportunity"

And the employer hires him. 2 months later the employee hears of a job that warrants his experience and offering 100K....so he leaves.

I have seen things like this happen regualrly during the last couple of years. It proves to be very costly for the employer...and it creates a serious loss in momentum.

Now...bear in mind...the employee LIED to the employer on the interview.

So the employer is at fault for wanting to avoid this from happening?

I am on the fence with this....

And completely not relevant to the topic.

Apples and oranges really.

That's a different issue.

No it is not.
It is the exact reason companies do not want to interview those that are unemployed.

It is something we have been dealing with for over 2 years now....and it is a serious issue that has helped transofrm my industry.

I know offer 120 day guarantee periods for employees hired for this exact reason (if they were unemployed)....and 90 days if they are employed.

Apples to oranges?

It is the one and only reason. That I know as fact.

 

[Sallow]

I agree with the irony.

I disagree with your assumption.

It is a very difficult situation.

An employer will ask someone why they want the job. They will give the right answer...not necessarily the truth...but the right answer..

"becuase I see it as a great opportunity to enahnce my career"...or something like that.

And then the enmployer says...but you were making 100K. This is more of an entry level job that warrants no more than 50K. I cant afford to pay you 100K....why would you take 50K?

And the employee will give the right answer....not necessarily the truth...but the right answer...

"it is not about money with me. It is about opportunity"

And the employer hires him. 2 months later the employee hears of a job that warrants his experience and offering 100K....so he leaves.

I have seen things like this happen regualrly during the last couple of years. It proves to be very costly for the employer...and it creates a serious loss in momentum.

Now...bear in mind...the employee LIED to the employer on the interview.

So the employer is at fault for wanting to avoid this from happening?

I am on the fence with this....

And completely not relevant to the topic.

Apples and oranges really.

That's a different issue.

No it is not.
It is the exact reason companies do not want to interview those that are unemployed.

It is something we have been dealing with for over 2 years now....and it is a serious issue that has helped transofrm my industry.

I know offer 120 day guarantee periods for employees hired for this exact reason (if they were unemployed)....and 90 days if they are employed.

Apples to oranges?

It is the one and only reason. That I know as fact.

You're talking about employee loyalty and employee retention. Not hiring the unemployed.

If an employer hires someone who is overqualified for the job and half the salary that employee use to make..then that employer should know that person will continue looking.

That's nothing really to do with hiring someone who is employed versus someone who isn't.

What's happening now..is something I pointed out in a previous post. Employers are looking to shed long term employees and hire contractors. Why?

It's cheaper.

It's also a great way to keep employees in line. Because they are always nervous about the next gig.

 

[Missourian]

Jarhead is right...that is the only reason businesses are not wishing to interview the unemployed.

Sallow's explanation would not account for hiring the presently employed over the unemployed.

 

[Sallow]

Jarhead is right...that is the only reason businesses are not wishing to interview the unemployed.

Sallow's explanation would not account for hiring the presently employed over the unemployed.

Sure it does.

Employers are not only looking for long term employees to whisk away from other places, they are looking for contractors. And..they are looking to convert long term employees into contractors.

These guys aren't stupid. They read the trades. Like BOA is looking to shed 30K workers. If I were a tech shop..I'd be cold calling BOA and offering contracts to the tech people.

We got that ALL the time at my shop. Headhunters were calling like crazy.

 

[CaféAuLait]

yeah.. that's exactly what we're all saying.... not.

Moron.

You're ALL brainwashed shytteheads. Me? Masters in History, speak 3 languages, 145 IQ. You? Doctorate in Glenn Beck? Azzhole.

the only 'Masters' you have is your Masters of the Universe action figure collection.

As for the IQ? I seriously doubt you're in the top 1% of the population. You must have left out the decimal after the 4.

Be careful, also buried in the jobs bill is small print about self-proclaimed members or possible members of Mensa and graduates of Yale/Harvard being able to sue those they deem "un-smart".

 

[oreo]

Obama Jobs Bill proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

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.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination | The Lookout - Yahoo! News


I guess Obama's jobs bill will keep the lawyers employed and rich.

Threaten them with higher taxes--add a zillion new regulations--and now sue the crap out of them if they don't hire a 99 weeker---

 

[Charles_Main]

So people who are unemployed SHOULD be discriminated against? I hadn't heard about them suing- I must listen to off the wall Pub haters more...

So are you saying employers should no longer be able to consider work history when choosing who to Hire? This is not something new, Long gaps in ones work history has always been considered a negative by employers when weighing Applicants pro's and Con's.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Obama Jobs Bill proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

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.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination | The Lookout - Yahoo! News


I guess Obama's jobs bill will keep the lawyers employed and rich.

Threaten them with higher taxes--add a zillion new regulations--and now sue the crap out of them if they don't hire a 99 weeker---

So then what happens when a more qualified candidate says they were discriminated against because an unemployed person was given the job over them I wonder? Do they get to sue too?

 

[francoHFW]

For the dupes, AGAIN- this is about "unemployed need not apply"- in a JOB DEPRESSION.Your a-hole Pubs at work...

 

[francoHFW]

IOW- the whole suing thing is more Pubcrappe for the dupes...

 

[Missourian]

Jarhead is right...that is the only reason businesses are not wishing to interview the unemployed.

Sallow's explanation would not account for hiring the presently employed over the unemployed.

Sure it does.

Employers are not only looking for long term employees to whisk away from other places, they are looking for contractors. And..they are looking to convert long term employees into contractors.

These guys aren't stupid. They read the trades. Like BOA is looking to shed 30K workers. If I were a tech shop..I'd be cold calling BOA and offering contracts to the tech people.

We got that ALL the time at my shop. Headhunters were calling like crazy.

Then why are they taking applications for a position at all?

If they wanted I.C.'s, that is the position they would be advertising.

They are not.

They are advertising a waged or salaried position with the company, not an independent contract position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Non-whites have disproportionately high rates of unemployment. Pulling this stunt greatly improve the odds that you'll be able to hire a white guy without breaking any other anti-discrimination laws.

 

[thereisnospoon]

To me these days you need a trade instead of an education. Hubby has been out of the navy since 07 he is a master mechanic and so far so good he was able to keep a job. He did get laid off once but had a job before his last day and he had 2 months severance pay . He quit that job and got a job back at his first job. He has only been back for 2 months and already a full employee they hire temp to full. There are people there over a year who is not a full employee but his work ethic got him a bump ..

Please for me ,thank your husband for his service to the country!