Skip to main content

View Diary: DeLauro and Johnson introduce bill to combat discrimination against unemployed (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Would this mean that I, as an employer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, VClib

    cannot consider WHY someone was terminated from the last job?  

    I completely understand that, in an economy like this, some people lose a job without doing anything wrong.  

    But sometimes people lose jobs because of things they do, or do not do.  I have actually had to do that  a couple of times (it's not an easy thing to do, even when the employee clearly does something that merits termination).

    Does this bill mean that I can't consider the fact that an applicant might be unemployed because he/she was terminated for cause?  I can't tell from the descriptions here.  

    •  AFAICT, that's not the case. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elfling, craiger

      This is about banning blanket discrimination against the unemployed, regardless of the circumstances of their last separation.

      This diary explains why that's necessary.

      With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied - chains us all, irrevocably.

      by Andrew M on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:03:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the purpose. That's not my concern (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, johnny wurster, VClib

        my concern (as with most legislation) is the way it's written.  If it's broadly written to ban "discrimination" against the unemployed "regardless of the circumstances of their last separation," that's problematic, in my view.  

        If it's broadly written to ban consideration of present employment status in any way, that would prevent me from considering WHY an applicant is unemployed.  That would prevent me from considering whether (and here's some really extreme examples) the applicant was terminated from the last job or two for stealing from petty cash drawers, for consistently being significantly late to work, for spending large amounts of work time surfing the net, etc.  If that's why the person is now unemployed, you know something?  I'd want to consider that in deciding whether to offer that person a job.  If I have two qualified applicants, I'd want to be able to choose the one who is unemployed for no reason of her own over the person who was terminated from the last job because she consistently failed to show up on time.  And I'd have a problem with a law that made that illegal.

        Again, I understand the purpose.  And I understand that, in this economy, a lot of people are unemployed for reasons that are not their fault. I am concerned about how broadly this is written.  I don't see anything in the descriptions of this law that would allow a potential employer from considering WHY a person is unemployed.  In fact, the descriptions seem to indicate to me that it would ban any consideration of their present employment situation -- whether they are unemployed through their own fault or not.  There doesn't seem to be anything that provides some exception allowing a potential employer from considering the fact that the applicant might have been terminated from prior jobs for cause. Which is why I asked.  

    •  You can use any reason you want to deny a job (0+ / 0-)

      to an applicant.

      It is likely that the pool of unemployed people, in good times and bad, probably has a higher proportion of malcontents, drug addicts, thieves.... blah, blah, blah.... But as a matter of public policy, should an employer have the right to exclude all unemployed people from consideration? Is it Ok to exclude diabetics? Fat people? Smokers? Single people? Women of child bearing age?

      Of course, this problem goes away if labor is scarce. That is why we need a jobs program..., an employer of last resort for those who need it.

      Don't squander your youth. You never can buy it back.

      by fredlonsdale on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:32:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought the same thing; the bill doesn't seem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk

      so crystal clear.  It doesn't seem the intent is to prevent an employer from considering circumstances, but it could really use some safe harbor rules or clear exception language.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site