Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is a fix?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is a fix?

    So the chief retard has decided that sueing a small company that won't hire you should be law?? If I own a company and decide I don't want to hire you for what ever reason that is MY RIGHT! To allow you to sue me because I don't give you a job?? WTF!?!

    Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

    By Zachary Roth
    Senior National Affairs Reporter

    Posts
    Email
    RSS




    By Zachary Roth | The Lookout – 11 hrs ago

    tweet196
    Share47
    Email
    Print





    Job fair attendees look over a recruiting table. AP Photo/Nick Ut

    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.
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    ...

    At first it sounds like a stupid law. After you read about the bullshit the companies are doing, it makes sense. The companies are not hiring people simply because they are unemployed. WTF is the person going to do? I bet someone will come on here and say that there are plenty of jobs at Walmart and McDonalds or that it is their fault they are unemployed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by line-em-up View Post
      At first it sounds like a stupid law. After you read about the bullshit the companies are doing, it makes sense. The companies are not hiring people simply because they are unemployed. WTF is the person going to do? I bet someone will come on here and say that there are plenty of jobs at Walmart and McDonalds or that it is their fault they are unemployed.
      Hell i don't blame them a lot of people milk unemployment till it runs out. There's usually a reason some one doesn't have a job for months and months at a time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by onemeangixxer7502 View Post
        Hell i don't blame them a lot of people milk unemployment till it runs out. There's usually a reason some one doesn't have a job for months and months at a time.
        Like in my case, having to make a career change because of health related issues and having to go to school to train for a new career that I can work in. Fuck anyone who says no to an otherwise qualified applicant solely because they are unemployed. What the hell does that have to do with your ability to do the job? Nothing.

        Now, is carte blanche to sue companies that do this proper? No. The EEOC should be the ones to handle enforcement. The last thing the courts need is to be bogged down with even more lawsuits.
        "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

        Comment


        • #5
          If I own the company, take NO money from any form of government and sell nothing to any form of government, then I should have the right to hire or not hire for any reason I want. Those reasons could be race , color, sex church, veteran status, or maybe the fact that I just don't like how you look. If a customer who wants to buy a widgit says, "I won't buy from him because he is bald headed" , or any other reason, that is OK. It should work both ways. If you take government money or sell to the government, then all bets are off. It's just like smoking. If a cafe owner has a big sign outside that says "SMOKING ALLOWED", that should be his right. However, the customer does not have to eat there. And, if you don't like smoking, don't work there.

          Comment


          • #6
            That is the answer to everything with these idiots, sue our way into prosperity!
            Originally posted by racrguy
            What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
            Originally posted by racrguy
            Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FastFox View Post
              If I own the company, take NO money from any form of government and sell nothing to any form of government, then I should have the right to hire or not hire for any reason I want. Those reasons could be race , color, sex church, veteran status, or maybe the fact that I just don't like how you look. If a customer who wants to buy a widgit says, "I won't buy from him because he is bald headed" , or any other reason, that is OK. It should work both ways. If you take government money or sell to the government, then all bets are off. It's just like smoking. If a cafe owner has a big sign outside that says "SMOKING ALLOWED", that should be his right. However, the customer does not have to eat there. And, if you don't like smoking, don't work there.
              I agree with this
              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FastFox View Post
                If I own the company, take NO money from any form of government and sell nothing to any form of government, then I should have the right to hire or not hire for any reason I want. Those reasons could be race , color, sex church, veteran status, or maybe the fact that I just don't like how you look. If a customer who wants to buy a widgit says, "I won't buy from him because he is bald headed" , or any other reason, that is OK. It should work both ways. If you take government money or sell to the government, then all bets are off. It's just like smoking. If a cafe owner has a big sign outside that says "SMOKING ALLOWED", that should be his right. However, the customer does not have to eat there. And, if you don't like smoking, don't work there.
                That's pretty much how it is in real life. I challenge someone to prove that I didn't hire them due to some form of discrimination. Rather than someone else being more qualified for the particular task, in my professional opinion. I wouldn't hire fatasses or old people. For the simple fact that old people can't work as quite as hard, and that fatasses are generally lazier or at the very least less capable in my experience. You can call it whatever you like but all it really is, is hiring the person I feel most qualified. I'll hire blacks all day long (as long as they're not old or fat) and simply watch their work performance just as I would everyone else. If they're lazy, then its the boot just like anyone else.

                Comment

                Working...
                X