American Jobs Act makes it illegal to refuse to consider unemployed for jobs

[Richard Tafoya]

Make complete sense. Discrimination against unemployed, particularly long-term unemployed, is a real problem. Job agencies currently are directed by some employers not to even forward resumes of anyone not currently working.

And as usual, Gohmert has it wrong. Completely backward, in fact. The bill doesn't make it illegal not to hire someone once they've interviewed for the position. It makes it illegal not to let them in the door in the first place. Considering that he caters to a subset of southern Republicans that may harbor a few lingering resentments about not being able to discriminate for various civil rights reasons, he's naturally trying to stoke those passions.

It must be really exhausting constantly inventing one's own facts to prop up silly, manufactured controversies.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...the-unemployed

President Obama's American Jobs Act, which he presented to Congress on Monday, would make it illegal for employers to run advertisements saying that they will not consider unemployed workers, or to refuse to consider or hire people because they are unemployed.The proposed language is found in a section of the bill titled "Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of an Individual's Status as Unemployed." That section would also make it illegal for employers to request that employment agencies take into account a person's unemployed status.

It would also allow aggrieved job-seekers to seek damages if they have been discriminated against. This provision in particular prompted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to argue that Obama's proposal is aimed at creating a new, special class of people who can sue companies.

He said this provision would only discourage companies from interviewing unemployed candidates, and would "help trial lawyers who are not having enough work," since there are about 14 million unemployed Americans.

"That's 14 million potential new clients that could go hire a lawyer and file a claim because they didn't get hired even though they were unemployed," he said.

[DES]

Recently, one prospective employer looked at me suspiciously and asked, "I see you haven't worked in a while. What have you been doing?" (Like I'd been lying on the couch watching soap operas and eating potato chips.)

After the first five minutes with this guy, I already knew there was no way I was taking a job there even if he offered, so it didn't matter anyway. I asked him, "How long have you had a hiring freeze? Let me guess. About the same time I've been out of work?" In actuality, it was longer. Jerk.

Finally, the hospitals have started hiring again. I just recently got a job after searching for more than a year.

[Incident]

Recently, one prospective employer looked at me suspiciously and asked, "I see you haven't worked in a while. What have you been doing?" (Like I'd been lying on the couch watching soap operas and eating potato chips.)

After the first five minutes with this guy, I already knew there was no way I was taking a job there even if he offered, so it didn't matter anyway. I asked him, "How long have you had a hiring freeze? Let me guess. About the same time I've been out of work?" In actuality, it was longer. Jerk.

Finally, the hospitals have started hiring again. I just recently got a job after searching for more than a year.

Your attitude toward getting a job gives me insight as to why employers might not want to even bother with the long-term unemployed if they find your lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement to be prevalent.

[Lt.Dallas]

Your attitude toward getting a job gives me insight as to why employers might not want to even bother with the long-term unemployed if they find your lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement to be prevalent.

To me, it didn't sound like DES came off as having a sense of entitlement at all. The potential employer was straight out rude to her, and she responded with the reason for her being unemployed for so long...hospital hiring freezes.

[pinky]

Sometimes, it's better to be out of work than to put yourself into a hostile work environment. DES is smart enough to know that the stress involved in a bad environment, in addition to the stress involved in her work itself, is more than enough to cause numerous illnesses.

Of course, in some people's minds, a woman who complains about a hostile work environment is nothing more than a troublemaker who's looking for a company to sue.

[Incident]

To me, it didn't sound like DES came off as having a sense of entitlement at all. The potential employer was straight out rude to her, and she responded with the reason for her being unemployed for so long...hospital hiring freezes.

BS There are many good reasons to ask a job applicant why there is a gap in their work history. It is a nearly universal question to ask. And it gives the job applicant an opportunity to sell themselves to the employer. How did you take advantage of your time off and how will that experience benefit us if we hire you. But Noooooooooooo when you are DES you think that you are so super special that even asking the most basic of questions is an affront. Don't they realize that they are blessed that she even took the time to fill out an application much less honor them with her presence at an interview.

[Incident]

Sometimes, it's better to be out of work than to put yourself into a hostile work environment. DES is smart enough to know that the stress involved in a bad environment, in addition to the stress involved in her work itself, is more than enough to cause numerous illnesses.

Of course, in some people's minds, a woman who complains about a hostile work environment is nothing more than a troublemaker who's looking for a company to sue.

If asking her what she was doing during her time off is enough to jump to the conclusion that a company has a hostile work environment and that this imagined hostile work environment will cause her many illnesses, then I would say this company is fortunate not to have her working for them.

[Incident]

Make complete sense. Discrimination against unemployed, particularly long-term unemployed, is a real problem. Job agencies currently are directed by some employers not to even forward resumes of anyone not currently working.

And as usual, Gohmert has it wrong. Completely backward, in fact. The bill doesn't make it illegal not to hire someone once they've interviewed for the position. It makes it illegal not to let them in the door in the first place. Considering that he caters to a subset of southern Republicans that may harbor a few lingering resentments about not being able to discriminate for various civil rights reasons, he's naturally trying to stoke those passions.

It must be really exhausting constantly inventing one's own facts to prop up silly, manufactured controversies.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...the-unemployed

As usual Richard believes he knows best how companies should be run. As a matter of fact he wants to tell them how to run it. He wants to do it by putting another layer of regulation on our already over-regulated industries. Which will in fact create less jobs. Companies will further delay new hiring because they just don't want the hassle. Richard, why do you so hate the American Worker?

[DES]

BS There are many good reasons to ask a job applicant why there is a gap in their work history. It is a nearly universal question to ask. And it gives the job applicant an opportunity to sell themselves to the employer. How did you take advantage of your time off and how will that experience benefit us if we hire you. But Noooooooooooo when you are DES you think that you are so super special that even asking the most basic of questions is an affront. Don't they realize that they are blessed that she even took the time to fill out an application much less honor them with her presence at an interview.

Perhaps you should have read my post more carefully, Paul. I wrote that within the first five minutes (perhaps that was an exaggeration -- it may have been ten minutes), I already knew I did not want to work for this company for varied reasons and those reasons came before the recruiter asked about my gap in employment.

I believe he got the hint after our exchange about the employment gap, as the interview ended after that, as was my intention.

[pinky]

If asking her what she was doing during her time off is enough to jump to the conclusion that a company has a hostile work environment and that this imagined hostile work environment will cause her many illnesses, then I would say this company is fortunate not to have her working for them.

Certainly, a prospective employer has the right, even the duty, to ask what someone has been doing during extended periods of unemployment. I've been asked that myself, when I returned to the work force after staying home to raise our kids for a number of years.

However, the question can, and should, be asked in a manner that conveys neutrality, not suspicion. There are many legitimate reasons why someone might have been out of work. If an interviewer conveys a belief that one must be lazy to have been out of the work force before hearing the answer, in addition to whatever else might have set off alarms during DES's interview, that should be enough to set off red flags for anyone looking for work, and says absolutely nothing about a sense of entitlement in a job seeker.

I wasn't present in the interview, so I'm unwilling to criticize her reasons for not wanting to work there.

[DES]

For the record, Paul, I was asked the question in the interview for the job I accepted, and I had no problem with the interviewer asking or with answering it. You've once again jumped to the wrong conclusion based on some wild scenario you concocted in your head.

[Richard Tafoya]

And in any case, the fact that you weren't presented with a job ad saying "unemployed need not apply" or denied an interview specifically because you didn't have a job at that moment makes it pretty clear you were not discriminated against because of your employment status.

A clumsy interview doesn't equal discrimination. An interview that focuses on skills and expectations and cultural fit in the organization needs to go seriously off-track to become discriminatory. There's nothing discriminatory about having a proper interview and then learning the company went with a different candidate.

But arriving for the interview to hear only "Oh, we didn't realize you were white/black/hispanic/over 40/married/unemployed/in a wheelchair/a mom/female... there's no point in going any further" for a job that has no real physical barriers to performing the duties at hand, could in some circumstances be considered discriminatory.

[DES]

And in any case, the fact that you weren't presented with a job ad saying "unemployed need not apply" or denied an interview specifically because you didn't have a job at that moment makes it pretty clear you were not discriminated against because of your employment status.

Absolutely. If anything, the discrimination was on my part. The guy was a jerk, the company he represented appeared to reflect his particular "management style," and I tend to discriminate against jerks when accepting employment.

[Incident]

. I wrote that within the first five minutes (perhaps that was an exaggeration -- it may have been ten minutes), I already knew I did not want to work for this company for varied reasons and those reasons came before the recruiter asked about my gap in employment.

Er, you did not write that perhaps you meant that but you certainly did not write that. Anyway lets assume you knew that you did not want to work for this company before you went in and wasted the interviewers time. Is it likely (YES) that you went in looking for something to piss you off and that colored your perception of the interviewers boiler-plate question?

[Incident]

But arriving for the interview to hear only "Oh, we didn't realize you were white/black/hispanic/over 40/married/unemployed/in a wheelchair/a mom/female... there's no point in going any further" for a job that has no real physical barriers to performing the duties at hand, could in some circumstances be considered discriminatory.

Of course it is discriminatory, but so what? There are many reasons why many why a company might prefer to reduce the hiring pool to those that are employed or recently unemployed rather than considering the long term unemployed. Many long-term unemployed people are satisfied with collecting unemployment checks and severence pay until that money ran out. A company might consider these people unmotivated job seekers. Why should you force a company to expend recources to weed these people out? Compared to the "protected classes" you mentioned problems with many of the long term unemployed are a condition or that class of people wheras the same problems within say the Jewish class are not a condition of being in that class.