|

Unemployed could sue if job interview unsuccessful

According to a report in the New York Times, President Obama thinks he may have figured out a way to create jobs, since everything else he has tried has failed, including his $800B stimulus.

The president has a jobs bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against job applicants because they are unemployed, especially those who have been out of work for a long time.

Excerpt:

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, said the president’s proposal would, in effect, establish the unemployed as a new “protected class.”

Mr. Gohmert said the proposal, if passed, would encourage litigation by sending a message to millions of Americans: “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.”

Trial lawyers will simply love the president’s new jobs bill, because they will now be able to sue corporations that do not provide jobs to the unemployed who are interviewed by the corporation, then negotiate a settlement, whether valid grounds exist or not.

See, the government can create job opportunities under Obama.

The president’s bill has already inspired the New York City Council to pass a bill that prohibits employers from considering the employment status of prospective employees when making a hiring decision.

Excerpt:

The bill would also put an end to job ads that say applicants must be currently employed. Under this measure, New York would be the first city in the country providing people with the opportunity to sue on the basis of unemployment discrimination.

Mayor Bloomberg has vowed to veto this bill but the city council approved the bill with a 44 to 4 majority, more than enough to override any veto. This could be the beginning of the end of the free enterprise system in this country, if it hasn’t already started under this president.

Share:

4 Comments

  1. Interesting article (and proposition).

    I think that this is likely an attempt to deconstruct the “Friends Hiring Friends” ethos that seems to be prevalent many places (this is prevalent in Rockford, as well) in the private sector. Jobs go unposted, or, are posted because they are mandated to be, however, qualified applicants who submit resume packages for the job are never really considered. They are interviewed as a formality, however, the job is already promised to an acquaintance of someone of influence within the company.

    I know of many local companies that have conducted (and currently do conduct) hiring practices as such locally, many times hiring underqualified to woefully unqualified (and uneducated) individuals over hiring qualified to over qualified unemployed (and educated) professionals.

    Sadly, it’s all too common locally. When people coin the adage “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”, it definitely fits the Rockford area job market.

    I’m not a litigious person, but in some ways, I can see this as a good thing for those whose time is wasted never having been a viable consideration as a qualified candidate from the minute they submit a resume package over the job being prematurely promised to a friend or acquaintance of someone of influence within that company.

    As someone who visits a lot of local small-to-mid sized businesses, it’s interesting to see the hiring trends in respect of applicant/workplace diversity, and whom are offered which types of jobs.

    I see this as a terrible thing, though, from the viewpoint of entrepreneurs who are trying to make a new or struggling small business profitable.

  2. Milton Waddams

    Talk about misrepresenting the problem. It isn’t that they have a bad interview. The problem is that they can’t even GET an interview. Many employers are now using current employment as a application criteria and state it plainly in the ads. It technically isn’ty illegal, but it is still wrong. Here’s an article that decribes the problem a bit better.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?_r=0

    Now, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think suing is the answer, but how is denying an unemployed person a chance to even interview solely on the basis of their current employment status even remotely ok?

  3. Craig Knauss

    My wife recently responded to an ad in our local paper and had an interview with a national retail firm. At the end of what she thought was a pretty successful interview, the recruiter told her that there weren’t any jobs. She was just creating a bank of qualified applicants for some time in the future. When my wife left the recruiter’s office she saw the whole waiting room was full of people that thought they actually had a chance of getting a job. My wife didn’t say anything to them, but now she wishes she had.

    Furthermore, when we get laid off, one of the conditions of collecting unemployment insurance is to look for a new job. How do we get one under the conditions that JGordon describes? People who are unemployed need a job more than those who already have one.

    • Ted Biondo

      When the government gets involved in the private company’s process, the productivity ultimately goes down, it becomes a litigious environment, raising the costs of products, which are passed on to consumers, making the business less competitive and eventually creating more unemployment!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>