Obama Jobs Bill proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

CaféAuLait;4201645 said:
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. :eusa_eh:
I think being unemployed should not and probably is not a deciding criteria for denial of employment. However, if a candidate for a job shows multiple time periods of unemployment, the hiring company should be within it's sole discretion to deny a job to a person who falls outside the criteria.
This is another example of Obama's disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law.
That rule states that it is up to the plaintiff to prove his case. No the the defendant's job to prove he is innocent.
Obama's proposal seeks to do just that. It would open a Pandora's box of frivolous time and money consuming suits that will in the end be denied. IN the mean time companies will end up spending billions defending these idiotic suits. No one should think for a second those costs will not be passed along to the consumer.
 
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...

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.
145 IQ ??? BULL SHIT !!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::doubt: 145 IQ and he thinks you should be able to sue somebody that doesn't hire you !! BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA !!
 
Last edited:
CaféAuLait;4201645 said:
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. :eusa_eh:
i'ts bullshit that will never pass !! it's just one of the many insane so called job creators the left is spitting out knowing that the republicans will not go for this stupid shit ,allowing the left to play the blame game again !! nobody with a brain is buying this bullshit !! suing somebody because they didn't hire you !! ......left wing bullshit !!:doubt:.
 
Last edited:
You just won't see ads for jobs! There are precious few as it is.

If you want a job, you have to know someone who knows someone that's looking. Word of mouth. Getting employment will be like the old speakeasy days. Go to the back door and say "Joe sent me".

YUP!

Of course many organizations must BY LAW post any jobs so that the public can see them.

Even they'll find a way to get around it, though, just wait and see.
 
I was unemployed for a year before I got the job I have currently, and have been here 18 years.

It's quite chilling to think that my current employer should have been allowed, or would even desire, for that matter,

a policy that would have barred me outright from even trying to get this job.

Some of you people just never give up on moving the stupid bar lower and lower.
 
And completely not relevant to the topic. :razz:

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.

Sallow...this is long, but I ask you read it with an open mind....it is accurate information and will help you understand the reason for the provision and enable us all to really debate it properly....and bear in mind....this is exactly what I do for a living...and what I oversaw when I was the President of my trade association.

With all due respect, you are the one who is discussing something that is off topic. Whereas what you describe is an issue in itself, it is by no means what prompted the provision this thread was discussing.

Employers have been steering away form interviewing the unemployed for the reason I described. They will not hire them and therefore dont even want to interview them. People taking a job they dont necessarily want, but need, has proven to be very inconvenient for the employer as the employee continues looking and leaves once they find a job they prefer. it is common knowledge that when someone leaves an existing position for a new position, they are likely truly enthusiastic about the opportunity....and likely to give it their all. It makes sense.

Now, as I said, whereas I understand the issue it creates for the employer, I dont agree with the practice. I have battled my clients many times over this issue and have offered them longer guarantee periods to prompt them to consider those that are unemployed...and that has proven to help minimize the issue, but not eliminate it.

In regard to what you describe...that, too, is an issue...but not nearly to the magnitude that you may think. Yes, it is less costly to put an employee on a 1099 status (IC), but you, as the employer, lose out on a level of dedication that you get with a full time w-4 employee...and not nearly as many employers engage in such as practice as you may think.

Likewise, the theory that employers are looking to cut costs by employing temporary employees over permanent employees is a fallacy. This practice is actually substantially more expensive for an employer as I will show you...and as I have shown my clients....

The statatory cost of a w-4 employee (the percentage above base payroll) ranges from 15-20% of base salary. The range is based on how much an employer contributes to healthcare...but the constant is, of course, payroll taxes and other costs of payroll such as the cost to run payroll.

However, if an employer hires a temporary employee, the cost to the employer is anywhere from a minimum of 35% of the base salary to as much as 70% of the base salary...as such is the range of the markup the temporary agencies charge (here in NYC). We , (my firm) charges anywhere from 40% to 50% markup....depending on the quantities of temp.

Anyway, we are in a unique time right now and whereas I would usually not agree with any governmental provision dictating the hiring practices of an employer (other than race, sex, age and religion discrimination), I am not necessarily against the provision we are discussing...although it will be next to impossible to actually enforce.

I hope this explanation helps.
 
I was unemployed for a year before I got the job I have currently, and have been here 18 years.

It's quite chilling to think that my current employer should have been allowed, or would even desire, for that matter,

a policy that would have barred me outright from even trying to get this job.

Some of you people just never give up on moving the stupid bar lower and lower.

Yes, such is a scary thought...and unfortunately, a serious issue we are experiencing right now.
 
You just won't see ads for jobs! There are precious few as it is.

If you want a job, you have to know someone who knows someone that's looking. Word of mouth. Getting employment will be like the old speakeasy days. Go to the back door and say "Joe sent me".

YUP!

Of course many organizations must BY LAW post any jobs so that the public can see them.

Even they'll find a way to get around it, though, just wait and see.

Excuse me?

Are you saying there is a law requiring employers to post any opening they have for the public to see?

Please offer me a link to this law. I have been in the employment arena for well over 25 years and I have never heard of such a law.
 
Yes, Just what we need now, in the slow growth situation.
New Health Care cost regulations, new EPA cost regulations and now they will have to pay for court costs.
Talk about anti business.
No business will be able to hire new employees.
 
Yes, Just what we need now, in the slow growth situation.
New Health Care cost regulations, new EPA cost regulations and now they will have to pay for court costs.
Talk about anti business.
No business will be able to hire new employees.

I agree with the Healthcare Law and the EPA regulations...
But I do not see this provision as anti business...I see it as something that must be done. I dont necessarily like it, but based on what I am experiencing here in NY...it is a serious issue.
The unemployed are deemed as unhireable...and it is tough to even get my clients to meet with them....although, I have found a way to get them to do it..and it is working...but not all in my business think out of the box as I do....and sadly, most in my business really dont give a crap.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top