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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

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?


They are discriminating against people without that skill.
If 1+1=2, then 1+2=3.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

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.




In employment discrimination cases the thing you look for is a bona fide occupational requirement. Is Xray Machine skills and experience a requirement of the position? Yes. Hence, it is not discrimination. You would need to come up with a bona fide occupational requirement why it's okay to not hire someone simply based on their unemployment history. "The jobless need not apply" does not sound like an occupational requirement. The point is, if you're an employer placing an ad like this, you're an idiot asking for trouble.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by macman

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.




In employment discrimination cases the thing you look for is a bona fide occupational requirement. Is Xray Machine skills and experience a requirement of the position? Yes. Hence, it is not discrimination. You would need to come up with a bona fide occupational requirement why it's okay to not hire someone simply based on their unemployment history. "The jobless need not apply" does not sound like an occupational requirement. The point is, if you're an employer placing an ad like this, you're an idiot asking for trouble.


No, or you are looking to save the HR department from being flooded with resumes from people that are deemed not qualified.

Again, you and some others like to try to change the definition of words and terms to suite your argument.
Discrimination is still discrimination, if that is the card you are going to play. It is either good for everyone, or no one. Cherry picking is what gets people and things in trouble.

Fact. Anyone out of the given career field looses skills required for that said field.

6-9 months is an eternity in the Tech field. And now that people can sit on their butts for what, 2 years, without a job, no matter if a low end job is available, what is to be expected?

Plus, with this demand, it is a way for the Employer to save money in having to bring a new hire up to speed in that field.
If you are still at your job, given the current economic environment, there is a good chance it is because you are damn good at what you do. So, why wouldn't another company want that person.

You obviously have never run a business.

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



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by macman

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.




In employment discrimination cases the thing you look for is a bona fide occupational requirement. Is Xray Machine skills and experience a requirement of the position? Yes. Hence, it is not discrimination. You would need to come up with a bona fide occupational requirement why it's okay to not hire someone simply based on their unemployment history. "The jobless need not apply" does not sound like an occupational requirement. The point is, if you're an employer placing an ad like this, you're an idiot asking for trouble.


No, or you are looking to save the HR department from being flooded with resumes from people that are deemed not qualified.

Again, you and some others like to try to change the definition of words and terms to suite your argument.
Discrimination is still discrimination, if that is the card you are going to play. It is either good for everyone, or no one. Cherry picking is what gets people and things in trouble.

Fact. Anyone out of the given career field looses skills required for that said field.

6-9 months is an eternity in the Tech field. And now that people can sit on their butts for what, 2 years, without a job, no matter if a low end job is available, what is to be expected?

Plus, with this demand, it is a way for the Employer to save money in having to bring a new hire up to speed in that field.
If you are still at your job, given the current economic environment, there is a good chance it is because you are damn good at what you do. So, why wouldn't another company want that person.

You obviously have never run a business.

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


You are being willfully ignorant.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification."

While skills may be lost for some, this is not an absolute truth of all positions or for all candidates... How about the candidates who keep their skills fresh or industries that do not change dramatically over 6-9 months? Displaying an ad that states "The jobless need not apply" will not protect you if your defense is to assume they do not have the qualifications based purely on the unemployment history. You need to do proper screening before coming to this decision.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by macman

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.




In employment discrimination cases the thing you look for is a bona fide occupational requirement. Is Xray Machine skills and experience a requirement of the position? Yes. Hence, it is not discrimination. You would need to come up with a bona fide occupational requirement why it's okay to not hire someone simply based on their unemployment history. "The jobless need not apply" does not sound like an occupational requirement. The point is, if you're an employer placing an ad like this, you're an idiot asking for trouble.


No, or you are looking to save the HR department from being flooded with resumes from people that are deemed not qualified.

Again, you and some others like to try to change the definition of words and terms to suite your argument.
Discrimination is still discrimination, if that is the card you are going to play. It is either good for everyone, or no one. Cherry picking is what gets people and things in trouble.

Fact. Anyone out of the given career field looses skills required for that said field.

6-9 months is an eternity in the Tech field. And now that people can sit on their butts for what, 2 years, without a job, no matter if a low end job is available, what is to be expected?

Plus, with this demand, it is a way for the Employer to save money in having to bring a new hire up to speed in that field.
If you are still at your job, given the current economic environment, there is a good chance it is because you are damn good at what you do. So, why wouldn't another company want that person.

You obviously have never run a business.

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


You are being willfully ignorant.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification."

While skills may be lost for some, this is not an absolute truth of all positions or for all candidates... How about the candidates who keep their skills fresh or industries that do not change dramatically over 6-9 months? Displaying an ad that states "The jobless need not apply" will not protect you if your defense is to assume they do not have the qualifications based purely on the unemployment history. You need to do proper screening before coming to this decision.


No, I am not.
I am stating the opposite side to show just how dumb this is.
By redefining discrimination is the only way to allow you and others to roll the bulldozer of control onto companies.
You don't get to define what is valued of an employee, the company does.
If they don't want to hire someone that has been out of work, due to costs associated with bringing them back up to speed in the field, expiration of certifications, lost skills due to non-use, or a feeling that there is a larger reason why they were unemployed is the companies prerogative. Not yours.

You really show that lack of understanding in what makes a company operate, other then reading left leaning blogs and books.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

If they don't want to hire someone that has been out of work, due to costs associated with bringing them back up to speed in the field, expiration of certifications, lost skills due to non-use, or a feeling that there is a larger reason why they were unemployed is the companies prerogative.



Costs due to re-education, expirations of certifications, lost skills, etc are all legitimate reasons. For you to suggest a blanket statement like "the jobless need not apply" is a justified assumption that the candidate is no longer qualified is moronic.

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about and if you're an employer I would strongly suggest you hire a good attorney and HR manager to protect you from your ignorance.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by macman

If they don't want to hire someone that has been out of work, due to costs associated with bringing them back up to speed in the field, expiration of certifications, lost skills due to non-use, or a feeling that there is a larger reason why they were unemployed is the companies prerogative.



Costs due to re-education, expirations of certifications, lost skills, etc are all legitimate reasons. For you to suggest a blanket statement like "the jobless need not apply" is a justified assumption that the candidate is no longer qualified is moronic.

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about and if you're an employer I would strongly suggest you hire a good attorney and HR manager to protect you from your ignorance.


I love hearing people like yourself, always trying to inject their opinion as to what someone has to do, with no experience in said venture.

Your "It's just not fair" attitude is well noted, but stomping your feet and trying to get Mommy and Daddy Govt to make it your way is wrong.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


So, you woman hater, how about women that stayed home to raise their children, whom now can and must go out to the workforce again to survive? Now their kids are grown probably going to college and the woman at the household must work, but they should not be hired because they haven't worked in "X" amount of years? You're nucking futs. How about that student that is just finished school, hey they are unemployed a lot of times because they focus solely on school. So they should not be hired simply because they have never worked, if you don't see this as excluding two major groups of people at the very least (And probably more than that) then I don't know what to tell you.
When things were good I raised my kids I didn't have a job. I went to wal-mart and worked awhile recently when work was real slow for my hubby. That's when I said oh heck no, I am done this retail work BS, I quit and enrolled in school for IT, of course I could not get hired anywhere while I was in school, I will finish in 9 months, therefore I will have NEW skils for a NEW career, but I should not be hired because I raised my kids like a good mother should and was reponsible and took the courses to gain my skills, I should be punished? I should be punished because I won't take the crap that these retail jobs dish out anymore (honestly it's gotten really awful) I worked retail my entire life. I made ten dollars an hour at home depot just about 9 years ago, had to leave that one not because of customers or management but because it cost me too much for my 1 child to be in day care, and my hubby made well enough so it was more cost effective for me to be a stay at home mother. But now management is horrendous, people (Customers) are a bunch of A holes and I really have got to think it has to do with the way corporations are behaving, they do not value their employees anymore where once they did, customers do not value the person waiting on them where they once did, and that is because of this IDGAS attitude of the companies, and seems all everybody does is play follow the leader probably because they're being treated like crap by their company. Where I used to be able to say that I had one or two bad customers a week I now had to say "DAMN I only got one or two GOOD customers this entire week". People and companies are just turning sour. I am sure their reasons are different but everybody has gotten this attitude that they are the most important thing in the world and everybody else be damned. Maybe it's just there are so many people alive today there wasn't enough souls to go around, that could be. Because you can look in the eye of these people, I have, And their eyes are dead. There is nothing there, no hope, no compassion, no remorse for being an a**hat. Nothing, they are empty and we sure know corporations have no souls. They aren't people, but yet they have rights as a person, WTF? This is what created the S***Storm we are seeing.
edit on 4-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Oh boy.


Off the deep end.

Never said I hated Women, you twisted it into that. Nor students.
Stomping your feet over life not being sunshine and lollipops does nothing.
If a company does not want to hire people that have been out of work for an extended period of time, that is the right of the company.

What you talk of is entry level positions. Plenty of those out there.

And in addition, you removing yourself from the work force years ago has nothing to do with being let go, and out of work.




edit on 4-10-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Here's a good article on the very discriminated against groups that are affected by these policies for those who don't beleive it is discriminatory:
Firms throw up new hurdle

And I think it's clearly stated in my post that (companies) they should not have rights like a person. These companies are not people, and do not deserve the same rights. Period, end of discussion. Giving them those rights does in fact infringe on real personal rights. A blind man could see that.


Companies should have no rights, period, they are here in business to serve us, to produce something worthy and provide jobs, the profit is only the byproduct of providing said service or product, if they had less rights, hey maybe our money would have spoken and they would have gone bust and closed shop(Which should have happened) not using our tax dollar to give those same dumb ass companies more money to bail out their sorry a$$3S.
edit on 4-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling & wording.

edit on 4-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: wording



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Here's a good article on the very discriminated against groups that are affected by these policies for those who don't beleive it is discriminatory:
Firms throw up new hurdle

And I think it's clearly stated they should not have rights like a person. These companies are not people, and do not deserve the same rights. Period, end of discussion. Giving them those rights does in fact infringe on real personal rights. A blind man could see that.


Companies should have no rights, period, they are here in business to serve us, to produce something worthy and provide jobs, the profit is only the byproduct of providing said service or product, if they had less rights, hey maybe our money would have spoken and they would have gone bust and closed shop(Which should have happened) not using our tax dollar to give those same dumb ass companies more money to bail out their sorry a$$3S.
edit on 4-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling & wording.


Um, no?!?!?!?!!

A business or company is there solely to make money, period.
The by-product is jobs. The goal is to make a widget or provide a service that the consumer wants.

They are not created to provide jobs.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Why would anyone want to work where they aren't wanted??? Wouldn't it be more preferable to work with like-minded in a non-hostile environment???



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by shushu
 


That would be preferable however, I don't believe that even exists any more. From what I've seen it's gone completely downhill and I can pinpoint when, when companies were giving the ability of rights as persons.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by shushu
 


That would be preferable however, I don't believe that even exists any more. From what I've seen it's gone completely downhill and I can pinpoint when, when companies were giving the ability of rights as persons.


Yes, because Soviet Russia did so well with the Govt controlling what a company can and can't do.


Good grief.


If you think a company is bad, don't work for that company.
Kind of like hating baseball, joining a baseball team, and demand that everything be change to soccer.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now


So why should the tax payer pay for people to be unemployed?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by shushu
Why would anyone want to work where they aren't wanted??? Wouldn't it be more preferable to work with like-minded in a non-hostile environment???


I agree. It's just that in this climate, options are limited, so I can understand why people would feel pissed off over being passed by because they've had extended unemployment.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Hey OP what about all the college graduates who have no prior experience and cannot find work?

I guess they are lazy and worthless also?

Young becoming "lost generation" amid recession
www.cbsnews.com...



In record-setting numbers, young adults struggling to find work are shunning long-distance moves to live with Mom and Dad, delaying marriage and buying fewer homes, often raising kids out of wedlock. They suffer from the highest unemployment since World War II and risk living in poverty more than others — nearly 1 in 5.

New 2010 census data released Thursday show the wrenching impact of a recession that officially ended in mid-2009. It highlights the missed opportunities and dim prospects for a generation of mostly 20-somethings and 30-somethings coming of age in a prolonged slump with high unemployment.

"We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers," said Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. He noted that for recent college grads now getting by with waitressing, bartending and odd jobs, they will have to compete with new graduates for entry-level career positions when the job market eventually does improve.

"Their really high levels of underemployment and unemployment will haunt young people for at least another decade," Sum said.

Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%
South, West lead U.S. in marriage and divorce
New data shows soaring wealth gap among races

Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University, added, "These people will be scarred, and they will be called the 'lost generation' — in that their careers would not be the same way if we had avoided this economic disaster."


I only know one other person with a business degree who got a job and they are earning 7.25 hr selling clothes at a department store. Retail is 70% of the economy normally so I don't hold anything against them for going down that road, but there are just NO JOBS.

Guess I should find some loan program that gives loans to unemployed college graduates to retrain in some much needed technical field (honestly doubt there are really all that many positions needed) . . .

Unemployed with no prior work experience in the field . . . Phuk it I am sooooooo down to sue



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Where is the link, for that information, beside my friend it was under Regan so call reganomics that corporate took hold of government.

Yes, it is been a long time but I still remember, that Regan was not so smart as many may think he was, he was a president that played politics as an actor no a politician, he was bought and manipulated by corporate just like any president after him. the migration of the industrial base on the US started under the Regan administration.

Are you obsess about the government overall or just the government of Obama.


edit on 4-10-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now


So why should the tax payer pay for people to be unemployed?



Why shouldn't the unemployed receive benefits that they have paid into? You cannot receive unemployment insurance if you haven't worked for a significant period of time, and during that time you are paying into the system.

Are some of you guys sick? Why do you want to see a bunch of people who are willing to work and contribute to society broke and desperate? You're advocating discrimination to keep them from working and also saying that they should not receive unemployment benefits to at least keep them going until they can find work. That's insane.

You guys are begging for civil unrest, and a skyrocketing crime rate with your borderline sociopathic attitudes towards your own countrymen.
edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join