Unemployed should sue if they don't get hired

[Sly]

At least lawyers will have work to do.

--

Advocates for the unemployed have cheered a push by the Obama administration to ban discrimination against the jobless. But business groups and their allies are calling the effort unnecessary and counterproductive.
The job creation bill that President Obama sent to Congress earlier this month includes a provision that would allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue if they think a company of 15 more employees denied them a job because they were unemployed.
The provision would ban employment ads that explicitly declare the unemployed ineligible, with phrases like "Jobless need not apply." As The Lookout has reported, such ads appear to have proliferated in recent years, prompting an inquiry by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.
Advocates for employers oppose the proposed ban. "We do not see a need for it," Michael Eastman of the Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times.
Lawrence Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, told the paper the president's proposal "opens another avenue of employment litigation and nuisance lawsuits."
Louie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, went further. He told the Times that the proposal would send the following message: "If you're unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you were unemployed."
The current downturn is characterized by a relatively low rate of layoffs, but still high unemployment. Many of the jobless have been out of work for an extended period. Around 14 million Americans are officially unemployed, of whom more than 6 million are considered "long-term unemployed," because they've been out of work for six months or more. The average duration of joblessness is currently 40 weeks, the highest in more than 60 years.
There is evidence that when people are out of work for an extended period, their skills atrophy and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find new work.
Earlier this year, New Jersey passed a bill banning ads that tell the jobless not to apply. But it did not go as far as Obama's proposal, because it didn't explicitly allow workers to sue if they thought they were denied a job because they were unemployed.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...191042168.html

[Harmon]

More poor people looking for handouts. Frivolous lawsuits will for sure create more jobs, no doubt about it.

[_Richard_]

what i don't get is how are unemployed individuals going to hire a lawyer to go after something like that? guess class action?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what i don't get is how are unemployed individuals going to hire a lawyer to go after something like that? guess class action?

They'll be announcing a government fund any day now.

[seeric]

this is no big deal. they'd have to prove it.

[Cherry7]

Make revolution......

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Make revolution......

Just don't post your idea on RabbitsReviews.com lol

[SexSearchSuzanne]

So if I'm understanding this correctly ... if you advertise a job, interview 50 people and one person gets the job, the other 49 are potentially going to sue because you didn't hire them?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Sly

They'll be announcing a government fund any day now.

think it's more of a 'shot across the bow' for employers, but god i hope not

[XPays]

let's just ignore that most of the jobs people are qualified for have been exported.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by SexSearchSuzanne

So if I'm understanding this correctly ... if you advertise a job, interview 50 people and one person gets the job, the other 49 are potentially going to sue because you didn't hire them?

Yep, so you better just not hire anyone, or even post a job opening.
Good way to get more people hired.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Sounds like the lobby for the legal profession is seeking full employment ...

[$5 submissions]

Put a private attorney general clause in that law and UNEMPLOYMENT WILL DISAPPEAR............







































At least for plaintiffs' attorneys heheheheheh

[papill0n]

people are so pathetic

sue if you dont get a job ? wtf

no one wants to actually work these days and now people want to get fucking paid before they have even started working

[woj]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what i don't get is how are unemployed individuals going to hire a lawyer to go after something like that? guess class action?

don't worry, some sleazy lawyer will work on contingency basis for a % cut...

[baddog]

Fucking Obama.

[woj]

I can already visualize the late night tv ads by some sleazy law firms:

"Can't find a job? too lazy to work? don't worry! contact us and we'll squeeze some easy $$$ from some unsuspecting employer...
No money down, we get paid, when you get paid, 99% success rate!"

[tony286]

Its not for not hiring them. its for saying only employed apply.

[AmeliaG]

Why would an employer advertise "jobless need not apply"? What benefit does one get from that? Sounds like a non-issue. I doubt any of the folks concerned about this could name 10 companies of 15+ people who have done this.

I do get why an employer would prefer employees with stable work histories. Sucks for folks who are looking, but it is not unreasonable for those who are paying.

[Sunny Day]

With so many unemployed, employers can pick & chose. You're unemployed, bottom of the list. Unemployed and can no longer make house payments or pay other bills, you're suddenly a deadbeat. Forget about getting hired.
We only hire already working, successful people. ALL OTHERS GFY.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Wow, it's another great reason not to create jobs.