It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New bill would ban discrimination against jobless

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
No...yes??? No....
yeah their really going to do it, or try at least...
From the Story

Over the last year or so, America's jobs crisis has been accompanied by a troubling trend: discrimination against the jobless.

As we wrote last month, there's evidence that a growing number of employers are posting job listings that explicitly tell the unemployed not to apply. "No layoff candidates considered," read one. Another was from the cellphone giant Sony Ericsson--which the company later called a "mistake."


Okay I can kind of see why a HR manager would say "No layoff candidates considered," because if it were me and my old company called me back I just might go...
But do we really need a law??? Rep. Hank Johnson sure thinks so ...

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Hank Johnson (GA-04) today introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011 – H.R. 1113 – which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect against discrimination on the basis of unemployment status.

Read about that here

So what do you all think do we really need this law?


edit on 17-3-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I can say that discrimination by employers against the unemployed is real. However, enforcement will be impossible and will most likely result in more red-tape in the hiring process. Something needs to be done, I don't think legislating this is the way to go though. How can you prove you were not hired because of being unemployed?

The economy is going to suck until we start making some major changes, until then its going to be a rough ride.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
yes we do if the employers wont hire someone whos unemployed then eventually no one will have jobs



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I'm saddened that this is enough of a problem that they are having to make a law against it. The people engaging in this type of crap are only exacerbating an already serious problem. They'll drive up the poverty rate, which costs me tax dollars. This kind of thing also puts me in danger because it will breed more criminal activity as people do what they have to do to survive and feed their kids.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


guns solve the problem of discrimination.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


guns solve the problem of discrimination.



You are being sarcastic..... Right?

I really hope you are not suggesting that people go shoot up potential employers....



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Let me just add I don't see it and if anyone would it's me


See I took a part time job doing Job coaching and placement for the state department of Rehab...
you know helping the disabled go back to work...

I talk to employers every day and even if they don't have an opening right now they don't just say not bring those people round here... More than likely I get a try again in a few weeks


I don't see it...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Even though this is a step in the right direction, it will not completely solve the unemployment problem.
The only way is to stop losing jobs abroad and bring back the manufacturing industry.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It's not just the formerly long term unemployed either. It's also happening to those with great skills who have been put out to pasture because they drew good salaries and were downsized because of that fact. Employers won't hire them because they feel that the new hire will not stay at a job that pays less for a very long time. It's an evil perception that will, in the end, put every ones job in jeopardy should you become a long term unemployed person through no fault of your own!
A law won't fix the problem either though it might scare enough employers to start thinking with a different perspective.
It's really cruel to go through 3-6 interviews for a job over several months and then just ignored when you know you have the qualifications and the expertise and highly rated in your former job. I know the feeling well! 18 months without work and 400 resumes later I got a job driving a truck again instead of a job I am also qualified for in my regular field!

Zindo
edit on 3/17/2011 by ZindoDoone because: spelling



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
There should also be a law against companies who hire permanent temporaries. I was hired as one back in the 80's after I graduated from college. They hire you at a lower hourly rate and give you no benefits. Yet you still work a 40 hour week! I kept on hoping they would put me on full time, but why would they? They were getting a bargain and saving money on payroll. I worked for 2 years and finally gave up. I started my own freelance business and they sent me work! They paid me by the project and I was making the same amount I made in a week for one day of work! And they were just one of my clients! I guess you can say I ended up taking advantage of them for the two years they took advantage of me.


I also worked for companies that have union workers who will only hire new people for 3 months and than let them go because the worker is than required to join the Union and receive a better better pay scale and benefits. Corporate America will always find a way to screw the worker out of a livable wage.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
My only question is why the stipulation to begin with? Why can't people whom are out of work not apply? that makes no sense. If an employer has a position open, why have " no lay off candidates need not apply " to begin with? That makes no sense. I think the law that should be imposed, is if any employer opens a position and has the above clause written, that they should be immediately shut down, and the assets sold to pay the fine.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I really wish that the feds wouldnt do anything when some small problem arises like this. If the feds let this go, thru competition the companies that willfully advertise that they won't hire the layed off people of this nation then I believe that their competitors will and they will be just shooting themselves in the foot. Now really think about this. If you go and apply to a company that is offering a job that you are skilled in but due to you being layed off recently, they ask you not to apply, what are you going to do? You will most likely privately boycott that company, tell your friends about their hiring practices and they will tell their friends and so on and sooner or later the company will change its attititude on its own due to loss of a public image and money.

We the people can handle issues like this on our own. We dont have to ask big brother to help us sort it out, we can elect to boycott any company and spread the word of such rediculous hiring practices. Bottom lines drive companies and if they see theirs slipping away due to such practices they will surely change them if they want to be in business in the future.

But no, we live in a time and place when we all look to the federal government to take care of our needs instead of doing something about it ourselves. All the government will do is pass some rediculous bill that will have probably over $10 million worth of earmarks and add ons to the bill and the original sayings of the bill will be struck thru and replaced so much that it will totally make in uneffective by the time it gets out. We will just be adding to our own destruction with asking the federal government to do something like this.

Unfortunately, all the federal government does is spit out bloated bills that have no real meaning by the time they go thru the process of being signed into law. Why do we the people think that the government has to do everything for us now a days?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons

I also worked for companies that have union workers who will only hire new people for 3 months and than let them go because the worker is than required to join the Union and receive a better better pay scale and benefits. Corporate America will always find a way to screw the worker out of a livable wage.


What if the company cant afford the pay raises for everybody that works their after just 3 months of work? Also, why are you getting a raise after just 3 months of work? Usually, in non union fields, you have to wait a bit longer to even ask for a raise since you are still learning the ins and outs of the job. If somebody asked me for a raise after 3 months id probably laugh at them.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by WeRpeons

I also worked for companies that have union workers who will only hire new people for 3 months and than let them go because the worker is than required to join the Union and receive a better better pay scale and benefits. Corporate America will always find a way to screw the worker out of a livable wage.


What if the company cant afford the pay raises for everybody that works their after just 3 months of work? Also, why are you getting a raise after just 3 months of work? Usually, in non union fields, you have to wait a bit longer to even ask for a raise since you are still learning the ins and outs of the job. If somebody asked me for a raise after 3 months id probably laugh at them.



Thus the reasoning to abolish Unions....perfect example, and good on Walker~



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


guns solve the problem of discrimination.



You are being sarcastic..... Right?

I really hope you are not suggesting that people go shoot up potential employers....


What would the government do to an employer that discriminated against an unemployed person?

First, the unemployed person would file a lawsuit based on the new law.

Second, assuming he demonstrates proof and is awarded a settlement, the employer is now forced to pay that person.

Third, if said employer refuses to pay that person, ultimately he will have a warrant issued against him for contempt.

Fourth, if said employer refuses to comply with his arrest, and attempts to defend himself from the initiation of violence by police officers, he will be shot dead.

Ultimately, all laws are enforced at gun point.


In the case of our now dead employer, it is important to remember that the employer:

never stole any property
never damaged any property
never hit anyone
never killed anyone
never threatened anyone

He simply gave a job to someone that he felt was more qualified in his opinion.



edit on 17-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


I am waiting for the Other Bill to be passed . You know , the one that says CREATE JOBS for the JOBLESS Right Now you Spineless Politicos !



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 




What if the company cant afford the pay raises for everybody that works their after just 3 months of work?


The majority of corporations that have union workers are not small companies. Lets just say, the company I worked for was a major corporation. I'm sure they could easily afford the union pay.



Usually, in non union fields, you have to wait a bit longer to even ask for a raise since you are still learning the ins and outs of the job.


Why do you feel people who give a hard days work don't deserve a fair livable wage? I've worked for non-union fields and some of these companies would only offer you a measly increase of 50 cents to a dollar an hour after a year of service. Most of the time your hourly rate is much less because you're paying a percentage of your pay into your health care benefits. Most of the time you would have to work there a good 15 years before you could make a reasonable livable wage. I think that gives you plenty of time to learn the ins and outs of the job.




If somebody asked me for a raise after 3 months id probably laugh at them.


If you would pay your workers a reasonable wage, they wouldn't have to come to you after 3 months and ask for a raise! That's the problem with corporate America, there is no compassion or sense of value for their workers. They expect loyalty from their workers, yet they take advantage of them. When they want to save money, instead of cutting outlandish wages at the top of the corporate ladder, the first place they cut is their main driving force behind their business, the poor worker.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think you all need to look a bit deeper into the situation.

If you owned/hired for a business, and were looking to add some people, who would you hire?

Applicant 1-Lot's of experience, multiple degrees, good long term employment history. Has been collecting unemployment for the maximum 99 or whatever weeks it is now.

Applicant 2-Exact same qualifications. Looks exactly the same on paper. Only difference, he has been working two jobs well below his experience level, say working days at a clothing retailer and nights at a fast food restaurant. Hasn't collected a dime of unemployment.

I say 2 naturally.

Everyone chooses whether or not to work. They just don't always get to choose where they work.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


arE you actuallY JOBLESs by anY ChAncE? i doubT YOU'd caRE so MUCH aBout THIs Bill If YOu WERe.

(i hAVE a brOKeN kEYboARD so GRAMMER NAzis step off!)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRealJayZ
 


To a degree I get your point, but the other side of the coin is that maybe working 2 part time jobs, still wouldn't have provided the basic fundamentals that candidate #1 need to provide for his/her family.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join