Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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

By Zachary Roth | The Lookout – 55 mins ago

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.

Advocates for employers oppose the proposed ban. "We do not see a need for it," Michael Eastman of the Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times.

Lawrence Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, told the paper the president's proposal "opens another avenue of employment litigation and nuisance lawsuits."

Louie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, went further. He told the Times that the proposal would send the following message: "If you're unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you were unemployed."

The current downturn is characterized by a relatively low rate of layoffs, but still high unemployment. Many of the jobless have been out of work for an extended period. Around 14 million Americans are officially unemployed, of whom more than 6 million are considered "long-term unemployed," because they've been out of work for six months or more. The average duration of joblessness is currently 40 weeks, the highest in more than 60 years.

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.

Earlier this year, New Jersey passed a bill banning ads that tell the jobless not to apply. But it did not go as far as Obama's proposal, because it didn't explicitly allow workers to sue if they thought they were denied a job because they were unemployed.

[Tim/Mav 305]

I have to agree that you are descriminated for being out of the job market for a period of time. Look at many job listings stating: Must have a recent employment history or Do Not Apply.

I called a Portland Oregon TV Station a month ago and stated this problem and felt it was descrimination for unemployed job seekers. They Agreed! But did not Air a Broadcast.

With the economy I fell and agree it is Unfair to turn away an applicant for a job because they have been out of work for an extended period of time. It is a Employers Market to pick and choose based upon an applicants qualifications. It should be illegal to post in a Advertisement. MUST SHOW RECENT WORK HISTORY by an Employer.

The Downside is: That some people will use this to benefit and begin Sueing Employers because they did'nt get the job or maybe really never wanted the job and only a lawsuit.

The Upside is: It should be illegal to require recent work history or don't apply in an Employers Advertisement.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I have to agree that you are descriminated for being out of the job market for a period of time. Look at many job listings stating: Must have a recent employment history or Do Not Apply.

I called a Portland Oregon TV Station a month ago and stated this problem and felt it was descrimination for unemployed job seekers. They Agreed! But did not Air a Broadcast.

With the economy I fell and agree it is Unfair to turn away an applicant for a job because they have been out of work for an extended period of time. It is a Employers Market to pick and choose based upon an applicants qualifications. It should be illegal to post in a Advertisement. MUST SHOW RECENT WORK HISTORY by an Employer.

The Downside is: That some people will use this to benefit and begin Sueing Employers because they did'nt get the job or maybe really never wanted the job and only a lawsuit.

The Upside is: It should be illegal to require recent work history or don't apply in an Employers Advertisement.

Employers are getting totally ####### and out of line these days imo. My sister told me the place she works for even does credit checks. I was like ####### you can't be serious. I'm glad I work construction and don't have to deal with that #######.

[Tim/Mav 305]

I have to agree that you are descriminated for being out of the job market for a period of time. Look at many job listings stating: Must have a recent employment history or Do Not Apply.

I called a Portland Oregon TV Station a month ago and stated this problem and felt it was descrimination for unemployed job seekers. They Agreed! But did not Air a Broadcast.

With the economy I fell and agree it is Unfair to turn away an applicant for a job because they have been out of work for an extended period of time. It is a Employers Market to pick and choose based upon an applicants qualifications. It should be illegal to post in a Advertisement. MUST SHOW RECENT WORK HISTORY by an Employer.

The Downside is: That some people will use this to benefit and begin Sueing Employers because they did'nt get the job or maybe really never wanted the job and only a lawsuit.

The Upside is: It should be illegal to require recent work history or don't apply in an Employers Advertisement.

There is more to this: The potential Employer without even saying can still overide this law by just not saying anything that violates the law. This can happen in the Screening of Applicants or in the Job Interview.

Though I think its a good idea the Employer is going to win by simply not asking on your resume or in an interview why you been out of work so long.

If the employer WROTE you a Letter submitting your denial of the job for being unemployed to long of period then that would be different and descrimination.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Jobs for out of work attorneys!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have to agree that you are descriminated for being out of the job market for a period of time. Look at many job listings stating: Must have a recent employment history or Do Not Apply.

I called a Portland Oregon TV Station a month ago and stated this problem and felt it was descrimination for unemployed job seekers. They Agreed! But did not Air a Broadcast.

With the economy I fell and agree it is Unfair to turn away an applicant for a job because they have been out of work for an extended period of time. It is a Employers Market to pick and choose based upon an applicants qualifications. It should be illegal to post in a Advertisement. MUST SHOW RECENT WORK HISTORY by an Employer.

The Downside is: That some people will use this to benefit and begin Sueing Employers because they did'nt get the job or maybe really never wanted the job and only a lawsuit.

The Upside is: It should be illegal to require recent work history or don't apply in an Employers Advertisement.

I openly discriminate against people who have been long term out of work. I know too well they CAN work and choose not to. Too bad for them. Make your bed, then sleep in it. I am not interested in people that openly sat on their @ss so I openly discriminate against them. I am pro choice. I support your right to refuse to work and my right to refuse to hire you.

If they make this law, I will just discriminate behind closed doors. All resumes and applications are by internet and require a listing of job history. And who will know? I am not required to respond to applications and if the company gets sued they will show that the person hired was chosen on merit. Promise. I do not even list a phone number or company name in the ads. They are ALL blind ads. Has anyone really looked at job ads lately? Who, exactly, are you going to sue if you did not get a job? I suppose with some research you can find who placed that ad...to what purpose?

All the attemts to FORCE employers to hire poor employees simply result in increased technology to weed them out OR the employers move ALL the jobs elsewhere...

Instead of "Made in China" The label should say "Made where we were not forced to hire unqualified employees, pay exhorbitant taxes, excessive obligations "

And then the SAME people try to protect illegals that are here for the purpose of avoiding all these laws. Why would I hire a LEGAL worker and fill out I-9s, document that they were the best worker, worry if they have been unemployed, worry about liability from lawsuits, worry about OSHA, ADA, FMLA, Federal unemployment, state unemployment, workers comp., EEOC...shall we continue? Pile more onto employers and see if it results in more jobs.

Just hire ILLEGALS that no one will even ask for ID!!!!!!!!

[Tim/Mav 305]

I openly discriminate against people who have been long term out of work. I know too well they CAN work and choose not to. Too bad for them. Make your bed, then sleep in it. I am not interested in people that openly sat on their @ss so I openly discriminate against them. I am pro choice. I support your right to refuse to work and my right to refuse to hire you.

If they make this law, I will just discriminate behind closed doors. All resumes and applications are by internet and require a listing of job history. And who will know? I am not required to respond to applications and if the company gets sued they will show that the person hired was chosen on merit. Promise. I do not even list a phone number or company name in the ads. They are ALL blind ads. Has anyone really looked at job ads lately? Who, exactly, are you going to sue if you did not get a job? I suppose with some research you can find who placed that ad...to what purpose?

All the attemts to FORCE employers to hire poor employees simply result in increased technology to weed them out OR the employers move ALL the jobs elsewhere...

Instead of "Made in China" The label should say "Made where we were not forced to hire unqualified employees, pay exhorbitant taxes, excessive obligations "

And then the SAME people try to protect illegals that are here for the purpose of avoiding all these laws. Why would I hire a LEGAL worker and fill out I-9s, document that they were the best worker, worry if they have been unemployed, worry about liability from lawsuits, worry about OSHA, ADA, FMLA, Federal unemployment, state unemployment, workers comp., EEOC...shall we continue? Pile more onto employers and see if it results in more jobs.

Just hire ILLEGALS that no one will even ask for ID!!!!!!!!

Many Personal Views on your Comment to the OP. To agree or to Disagree is up to the reader.

Using the expression "Poor People" "Lazy" "Hire an Illegal" AND I'LL HIRE WHO I WANT IF I DECIDE TOO. Is what the Request of the President is. Descrimination. But I will say as I already did, some people will take advantage and Sue Employers.

I Honestly don't see the Law going to happen. It is an ELECTION YEAR and Obama wishes a second term.

Though the Unemployment rates say 9% it is really around 19% and thats a large majority of any vote. Your Politicians are scrambling for Votes to tell you what you want to hear. Does it mean anything? NO .. Obama is currantly trying to raise Millions to be re-elected.

I never met a Politition I did'nt like but I never met a Politition I trusted....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ours is a culture of lying. The employers will not hire the unemployed and not tip their hands to avoid a lawsuit. The applicant will simply falsify their resume to get around it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ours is a culture of lying. The employers will not hire the unemployed and not tip their hands to avoid a lawsuit. The applicant will simply falsify their resume to get around it.

Now you are thinking like an attorney! May the best liar win!

And that is what it is all about anyway, trying legislate otherwise is a fool's errand. They would be much more useful passing laws to ban floods or something.

Why would one ever be "unemployed" when you can be "self employed" If someone shows up to apply to me for a job and is too stupid to hire himself when he loses another job...I don't want him.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Employers are getting totally ####### and out of line these days imo. My sister told me the place she works for even does credit checks. I was like ####### you can't be serious. I'm glad I work construction and don't have to deal with that #######.

thats the best way to find out if you're hiring a responsible person or not. if they don't pay their bills, i don't want them here.

of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Employers are getting totally ####### and out of line these days imo. My sister told me the place she works for even does credit checks. I was like ####### you can't be serious. I'm glad I work construction and don't have to deal with that #######.

thats the best way to find out if you're hiring a responsible person or not. if they don't pay their bills, i don't want them here.

of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.

I am subject to an annual credit check from my employer because I have access to a lot of sensitive information. Someone with massive debts is more likely to sell information to a tabloid. People who have been out of a job for a while are in that position for a reason. Either they are lazy slobs who choose to collect entitlements and bankrupt our country, or they truly are in need of help. I don't mind helping the later.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am subject to an annual credit check from my employer because I have access to a lot of sensitive information. Someone with massive debts is more likely to sell information to a tabloid. People who have been out of a job for a while are in that position for a reason. Either they are lazy slobs who choose to collect entitlements and bankrupt our country, or they truly are in need of help. I don't mind helping the later.

So you are in favor of limiting unemployment and not extending it over and over the way Obama does? You favor limiting welfare?

[The_Dude 1,142]

So you are in favor of limiting unemployment and not extending it over and over the way Obama does? You favor limiting welfare?

Unemployment and welfare need to be blown up and redesigned so that those who need it will receive the benefits, while those who sit on their ####### collecting benefits because they are too lazy to go get a job do not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

thats the best way to find out if you're hiring a responsible person or not. if they don't pay their bills, i don't want them here.

of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.

Your credit is not anyone's business but your own and those who you are obtaining credit from.

It should never be a part of the employment process and not a consideration at all. It's assuming too much based off one's personal life instead of their professional life. Someone can have a stellar job record, but have ####### credit. How one treats his or her job doesn't reflect how he or she acts at their place of employment.

Employers who discriminate based on credit are assuming that a person it going to steal from them. This type of risk assessment is extremely misguided.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Employers are getting totally ####### and out of line these days imo. My sister told me the place she works for even does credit checks. I was like ####### you can't be serious. I'm glad I work construction and don't have to deal with that #######.

Hate to tell you, Kip, but even construction companies are doing it now.

The really bad news is that some get a bad credit report and that is the last you hear of them. There is no "opportunity" to explain anything in an interview...bad credit, no interview.

If anything should be changed, and it could be, THIS would be it. It would be very simple to make it illegal to do credit checks for employment purposes. In theory I do not oppose it but there is simply way too much possibility of there being mistakes, errors, things caused by fraud, etc., to simply look at a credit report and make a decision about a person without explanation or an opportunity for correction. You may as well do anonymous internet checks for other unverified information.

I think it is also a mistake for an employer to use this as a "deal breaker" criteria for employment without balancing it with other information such as a reliable work history.

It is, however, a indication of how impersonal the hiring porocess has become and this is directly linked to litigation against employers, legislation making it difficult to terminate employees, and "discrimnation" legislation. In itself it creates a whole NEW fields for litigation (you won't keep the lawyers down for long)as they calculate that it is racial discrimination since blacks are more likely to have bad credit...or some such nonsense. It could even be age discrimnation since old people are more likely to have bad credit than young ones, etc. Wait and see.