I call this one a mixed bag, for a number of reasons that I will explain after the quote and what I write might surprise you.
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.
“So if you’re unemployed, and you go to apply for a job and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer,” Gohmert said on the House floor. “You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you’re unemployed.”
via Obama’s bill makes it illegal to discriminate against unemployed – The Hill’s Floor Action.
I see that other blogs are ballyhooing about this one; and even as someone who has been unemployed since 2005, I can see why this would be a bad idea.
First off, most unemployment cases like this, would be tossed out of court. Because unless it is a union shop, there is no guarantee of employment, ever. In other words, no employer is obligated to hire anyone, ever. As much as I know that being employed sucks and being unemployed since 2005 sucks even worse; it would be very hard to prove that some company did not hire me because of that reason. One would have to establish that an employer knowingly did not hire you, because of your extended employment. In lawyer terms, it is called “proving malice,” I believe. But, again, I am not a lawyer.
Here is why I call it a mixed bag: The only way this would be a good thing; would be if you did have definite proof that an employer was not hiring you, for being long term unemployed. However, to be, that just seems wrong. No one, who owns a business, should be obligated to hire anyone, ever.
Second of all, putting myself into the shoes of an employer; if I knew that Congress was going to pass this sort of a law or did pass it — I would be very leery of hiring anyone who had been unemployed for any length of time. In fact, if you did not have a job, when you applied, I would not bother even calling you, for fear of being sued.
Thirdly, from what I have been reading, this “jobs bill” is basically D.O.A. — the Republicans are not going to pass it. Speeches or not, the thing will die in Congress.
So, file this one under, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
If it is worth anything at all; I even told this one to my lifelong Democratic Party voting Mom, and she even said, “That’s crazy! They won’t pass that!” 😀
Others: Weasel Zippers and JammieWearingFool (Via Memeorandum)