Potential Employer: “I Think We Can Use Your Skills. Oh, You’re Unemployed? Get Lost.”
If you’re out of work, you’re catching it from all sides. Rightwing state legislators are reducing your unemployment benefits because you’re just a worthless parasite. And a lot of employers won’t hire you because you’re unemployed.
How’s that for circular reasoning? Sure, everyone knows you have a better chance of getting that new job if you’re already employed. But for millions of job seekers to be automatically rejected just because they’re not currently employed — WTF?
There’s some sentiment for expanding anti-discrimination laws to include the unemployed, but I don’t know whether the government can or should get involved in this. And how would they enforce it?
Unfortunately it’s not illegal to be a douchebag.
Congressman Hank Johnson (D—Georgia) has introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011, which would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employers from discriminating against unemployed job applicants.
New Jersey already has a law saying that posted job listings cannot state that the applicant has to be currently employed.
There’s some legal reasoning that race is a strong factor in discriminating against the unemployed, since minorities make up a large percentage of the jobless.
In any case, any new laws protecting the unemployed against discrimination would probably be overturned in the courts. Corporations are people, after all, and this intrusive new law would hurt their feelings.
Labels: Congressman Hank Johnson, discrimination against unemployed, Fair Employment Act of 2011
posted by Tom Harper @ 4:38 PM
10 Comments:
Clearly, something will have to be done. We do not want to create a permanent unemployed class.
We don't? Says you.
- rich crackers
Sure they don't, JR.
But what do you think the prisons are for?
I've been asked numerous times after an interviewer has expressed real interest in my background and preparation, "just exactly where are you working right now?"
And when told that I am temporarily between jobs and that it's been over 6 months, "Sorry. We only pursue the currently employed!"
And it's not illegal to ask, is it?
Love you!
S
This comment has been removed by the author.
Try a government job. They have other people's money to burn.
JR: Or maybe a permanent unemployed class is what some of the oligarchs want.
Randal: Yup, I think that's what the RCs want.
Suzan: That's next on the agenda -- have a job or become an investment in the lucrative Prison Industrial Complex.
Lisa: Your first comment, that you deleted, and your second comment, are identical. Nice "revision."
Thanks Tom,lol!!!!
It's an analog of banks traditionally wanting to loan money to people with enough money that they really don't need a loan.
This is a terrible development and direct result of going for many years with too many workers seeking too few jobs. It's one of many bad things caused by that situation.
As you said, Tom, a law against it will probably do little because it's nearly impossible to prove the employer discriminated on the basis of joblessness. Plus, the courts will probably scuttle the law.
The only answer I can come up with right now is to get back to having a booming economy and a job seekers' market for jobs again.
J.R., we already have a permanent unemployed class.
SW: It's definitely comparable to the old axiom that "the best way to get a loan is to prove you don't need one."
I don't think any laws against this would be enforceable. Like you said, an employer can just make up a different "reason" for not hiring an unemployed applicant.
Post a Comment
<< Home