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.

 

Unemployed Didnt Get that Job? Sue!!!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Let’s talk about that jobs bill that we can’t pay for but Obama wants to “pass NOW!” More specifically, Title III, Subtitle D of the bill. This section says that employers cannot hire or not hire someone based on their current employment status. Richard Epstein at the Hoover Institute has a great breakdown of the jobs bill as a whole, linked here, and he talks about this piece of the bill at the end of his article and says, “These laws assume, erroneously, that remote administrators have better information as to what characteristics are job-related than the employers whose successful operations depend on making the right calls.”


wrapyourheadaround.com...

Alternate Link:

townhall.com...

So when i heard this my jaw dropped and said what the hell seriously if your unemployed your being discriminated agianst? really now?

More of the same government knows best people and business dont know jack this is seriously getting old and making matters worse.

Its the same for every government regulation that has killed job creation and wealth creation in this country its a simple fact business lose money when they dont hire the right people to fill their positions they have open same thing as per affirmative action.

the country has gone stupid and its only getting more stupid by the day and further compounding the problems and making new ones.

i have had enough of government run amuck i think we all have but for crying out loud getting to sue cause you dont have a job?

nah that aint on the employer thats on the government strangling its hold over them.


what say you ats? check hats and coats and attitudes at the thread door thread open for business.




edit on 2-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but it became something of a standing order at many businesses, during the market crash, that they were not hiring anyone who was unemployed with the excuse that an unemployed person was more prone to steal. This caused many unemployed to stop trying to seek employment because it became an exercise in futility.

The whole lay-off, job freeze thing, was nothing more then a tactic by the major companies to create a market of job fear to force remaining employees to work for less money and benefits or risk being put out of their jobs, with no hope of being rehired anywhere. This was pulled on the employees at my company for certain, forcing us to work extra hours for free (which is illegal), do the work of 4-5 laid-off employees, while getting both our salaries and benefits cut, so our employers could rack up record profits, and their CEO's get record bonuses due to their ingenious money making policies.

I get a good laugh out of those who say to remove oversight from corporations because it will make this country profitable again. The companies here have proven that if you remove oversight we will go back to the days of company stores and slave wages.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Because, God forbid, we stop these companies from adopting practices that can, and has, led to the marginalization of entire segments of the population.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
well considering reagans deregulation that lead to over 17 million jobs created and after he was gone the push for more regulation came back and more have been added since then.

regulation and control hasnt brought jobs back to this country but pushed them out the proof is in the pudding

75 million ameircans on welfare and unemployed out of a country of 310 million both has steadily increase with all that control.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
So when i heard this my jaw dropped and said what the hell seriously if your unemployed your being discriminated agianst? really now?

This is pretty common knowledge. If you've been unemployed too long, your resume won't make it past the HR screener. It's the economic version of "No Irish Need Apply." Maybe it's fair, maybe it's not, but I don't believe prolonging the unemployment of otherwise qualified job-seekers, in favor of students and job-hoppers, is creating any wealth. It sounds like HR being lazy and inventing arbitrary reasons to winnow the applicant pool, so they have fewer candidates to deal with.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


the way it works is a person who has the qualifications for any job they are interview for if they dont have those they dont get the job merely because they think they are entitled to that job.

unemployed is not a job qualification no matter how much the current administration and their supporters claim it is.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
What I loathe on top of this is that they use your CREDIT HISTORY to see if you can get a job or not. Excuse me????? Just because I have crap credit doesn't mean I am not a hard working person and am loyal to a Tee to the jobs I have held. Just because I can't pay my bills (medical, mind you) doesn't mean I'm a crap worker. I /need/ a job to pay off my daily and monthly needs as well as try to pay off bad credit. I'm the kind who offers my days off to work for others so they can get things done. I'm the one who offers over time. Im the one who wants to move up, become a better paid worker with more responsibility to better my life, past, present and future. And so, on top of being judged worthless because of bad credit, I now have to look forward to not being hired because I don't HAVE a job? How do you expect me to work 40 hours a week if I'm already working 30? Just an example but man. Those who desperately need work WILL work hard to hold that job cuz we know what it's like to struggle and go without.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


the way it works is a person who has the qualifications for any job they are interview for if they dont have those they dont get the job merely because they think they are entitled to that job.

I was going to respond to this, but after reading it several times, I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. If you would like to rewrite it in standard English, with capitalization and punctuation, I will take another look at it.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarra1833
What I loathe on top of this is that they use your CREDIT HISTORY to see if you can get a job or not. Excuse me????? Just because I have crap credit doesn't mean I am not a hard working person and am loyal to a Tee to the jobs I have held.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, an accurate credit history can say something about your self-discipline and how you treat other people's money. On the other hand, how one treats one's personal line of credit is not necessarily reflective of how one treats an employer's resources, and many things reported to the credit reporting agencies are emergency expenditures like your medical bills. On top of that, the CRAs are frequently wrong, and you may only be able to check each one for free once per year. That means letting an error remain for up to a year, or paying exorbitant fees to the CRAs for the privilege of looking at the data they purport to be about you.

CreditForums.com is a good site for dealing with credit issues. (I have no connection with the site.) They have a sub-forum for dealing with medical collections. You may be able to get those medical bills off your reports for less than the alleged debt, or for nothing at all. Debtors have lots of rights under the law, and creditors have a lot of responsibilities. When you assert your rights and demand your creditors live up to their responsibilities, debts get a lot easier to handle. Sometimes they just disappear.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I do believe government shouldn't be involved in whom a company should and shouldn't hire. It doesn't take government to regulate a job market. Companies providing the best working environment and benefits will do that. I mean look what has happened to the economy due to the government getting involved. So you have 2 potential employees, one is currently employed and has been with his company 5 years. The other is equally qualified but has been unemployed for 6 months. The last company he worked for said he wasn't rehireable. There could be a number of reasons why but thats all the information the company is allowed to give. Which person gets the job? If its my company I want the one that has a stable work history. My company, money, and success or failure based on my decisions and I don't want to have to worry about being sued for making a sound business investment.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
regulation and control hasnt brought jobs back to this country but pushed them out the proof is in the pudding

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

No the ability of companies to offshore to countries that allow slave labor, thereby maximizing their profit margin, is what lead to a decrease in the US job market. The way to solve this problem is to make it even more unprofitable for companies to use off-shoring. Off-shoring is also what killed the tech market in the US, and caused the 2001 tech crash.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


the only thing that will do is make them all leave which is why the have been leaving

seriously its cheaper to make things 10,000 miles away and ship it here than it is to make that product 1 mile from where a person lives.

feel free tho lets strangle them even more.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Its certainly more profitable to pay your employees $.25 an hour, working 20 hours a day, with no benefits in china, while having no environmental oversight allowing you to poison their living environment, then it is to have to deal with a country who monitors your pollution, and expects you to pay a livable wage with benefits.

No arguments there.

All corps want now is to maximize profits, while shirking any and all responsibility they owe to their employees, consumers, and the population as a whole.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/2/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
There are a lot of things companies do to keep from hiring someone.

Here in Calif you can not ask if a person has a misdemeanor record and the police in Calif can not give out that information.
but the police departments in Nevada will sell companies that information at $30 for a complete criminal record.

You are protected under the Americans with disabilities act from having to tell a employer about your health problems before you are hired.
But a employer can and many do check a data base that the insurance industry runs of all your medical treatments even if you were not covered by insurance. HIPAA Privacy Rules be dammed your health records are out there for anyone that wants to pay to get them.

As for the companies that won't hire the unemployed that has been going on for many years.

I have a Nevada LLC corporation that i could put on any resume as a employer at anytime.
Setting up a Nevada corporation cost as little as $200 a year and if set up right your name is not there for another company to see that you are the owner.
www.nevadacorporationsonline.com...
This can have many advantages like putting cars or trucks in a company name and using them as a business expense
Writing off your Internet cable cost as a business expense. All you have to show that maybe you buy or sell on E-Bay
You can easily save the cost of incorporation in Nevada on your taxes every year.
If you are unemployed you can put on you resume that you are a part time employee of the corporation and that you are looking for full time work.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Def,

You forgot to add the following :

The fact that ever since new regulations went online and old and active ones were reinforced meant that since they weren't getting their way they used the little kid games to deny people employment.

The claim that they'd steal became an excuse that got real tired and old real quick.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Maybe it's fair, maybe it's not, but I don't believe prolonging the unemployment of otherwise qualified job-seekers, in favor of students and job-hoppers, is creating any wealth


Students and job hoppers are cheaper, so it creates, or at the least sustains wealth for corporations. In some people's views, we fix our economy by helping the corporations become even richer at the expense of you and me.


The usual lies about helping companies help us by allowing them screw us over.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
unemployed is not a job qualification no matter how much the current administration and their supporters claim it is.


"The jobless need not apply." This is discrimination and it should not be allowed. Employers are already aware that they can not discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion...

Before you try to suggest this will create a country filled with lawsuits by the unemployed... Keep in mind, you still need to have a case. It's not like every person denied a job today sues their prospective employer based on their sex, religion, age , or race... People are denied jobs every day for a variety of legitimate reasons. For it to be discrimination, evidence of discrimination is required. That's why HR knows better than to ask a candidate their age, or religious affiliation. Discrimination against the jobless is no different, and if you have strong evidence to believe you have been denied a job based on your unemployment (such as an ad that states "The Jobless need not apply") you absolutely have a case for discrimination.

Will companies still find a reason not to hire the jobless, or others based on sex, race, etc? Of course. They do it all the time. They say this person wasn't the right 'fit'. The point is, they are not allowed to be overtly discriminatory.
edit on 3-10-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Good hell, where do we start?

Being out of a job and career field does mean you are removed from the industry, as I don't see a lot of people doing their old job at home.

Ok, so lets take my beloved Tech Career Field. This field, whether it be Computers, Networks, Systems or what ever, moves at such a brake neck speed, it is sometime hard to keep up while actively working in the field.
Now, having a desktop Tech out of the game for 6-9 months, is a game changer. Sorry, but skills not used, are skills lost.

Now, with that whole statement of more prone to theft? That is just stupid, so leave it with the other stupid ideas. If a company wants to operate on that premise, let them. Doesn't sound like a good company in the first place.

Ok, so, should a company be allowed to not hire due to extended unemployment? Yes. Just as they can state that they won't hire someone for database admin, with no background in database admin.
It is the company that gets to decide who to hire and who not to. Not the Govt.
Man, this is just so stupid to believe that people make this an issue. People are going bonkers.

Does it suck? Yes. But to think that the Govt gets to force the Company to hire someone, when the obvious issue of Race/Religion/Sex has been removed is just crazy.

So, no the Govt has no business with this.


edit on 3-10-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by neo96
unemployed is not a job qualification no matter how much the current administration and their supporters claim it is.



Discrimination against the jobless is no different, and if you have strong evidence to believe you have been denied a job based on your unemployment (such as an ad that states "The Jobless need not apply") you absolutely have a case for discrimination.
edit on 3-10-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


You are insane.
By that rational, if I am not hired because I don't have experience in repairing Xray Machines, then it is discrimination of people without Xray Machine Experience.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Ok, so, should a company be allowed to not hire due to extended unemployment? Yes. Just as they can state that they won't hire someone for database admin, with no background in database admin.


This stance doesn't make sense. One is discrimination and the other is a lack of required skills or experience. How can you equate the two? Unless you feel companies should be allowed to discriminate?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join