Skip to main content

View Diary: The Unemployed Aren't Second Class Citizens - Let's Protect Them From Hiring Discrimination (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Read the EEOC quote I inserted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, arpear, VClib

    Asking about race is often prima facie evidence that race is a factor in employment decision making.  For that reason, employers are well-advised to completely avoid the topic at interviews.  

    If one simply substitutes "unemployment status" for race in that EEOC quote I have above, then that means that an employer should not even ask about employment status, because that is prima facie evidence as to an improper use of that.  Asking, as I often do at interviews, "why did you leave your last position" would be out of bounds, because it presumes you are unemployed.  In fact, employers would not even ask if you ever have been fired, because that is a roundabout way of asking about your employment status.  

    The problem I have is that, once in a while, the fact that you are unemployed IS relevant to whether I want to hire you -- because of the REASON you would be unemployed.  

    If the law simply puts "unemployment status" on the same par with race, gender, and national origin, an employer pretty much can'[t even ask.  

    Again, it's not the goal that is problematic.  It's that this bill does not seem to me to be well thought out.  

    •  Here's what you do, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, CA TreeHugger

      you go write us a diary explaining why this bill is unworkable. Dazzle us with your legal brilliance and your clarity of expression. Oh wait, you never actually write diaries, do you ? You just do threadjacks under the diaries of others.

      ¡Viva Baja Libre!

      by Azazello on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:27:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since the goal isn't problematic, (0+ / 0-)

      What language would you substitute? Maybe it is written in such a way as to make defensible reasons/questions into lawsuit material. If so, what would you put there instead?

      I'm finding a lot of things funny lately. But I don't think they are. -- Ripley

      by tytalus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You could write something (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CaliSista, sethtriggs, cai, VClib

        much simpler to say exactly what you said -- you can't list "presently employed" as a job qualification.  

        the problem isn't the language as much as the framework.  By inserting "unemployment status"  into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the list of characteristics, right after "national origin," (which is what this bill does), it puts unemployment status on a par with race, religion, national origin for all aspects of the Civil Rights laws (at least relating to employment.  

        Perhaps it could be a standalone bill saying that presently being employed cannot be made a qualification for applying for a job.  That way, employers can't up front say "unemployed need not apply" and would be obligated to accept resumes/applications from the unemployed, but they would not be prohibited from inquiring into whether an applicant was unemployed and -- most importantly -- WHY an applicant is unemployed.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (36)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site