Skip to main content

unemployed over 26 weeks graph
Click here for a larger version of this chart created by Calculated Risk
The official unemployment rate is 9.2 percent, with 14.1 million people officially unemployed. Adding in underemployed and discouraged workers raises the unemployment rate to 16.2 percent, and 6.3 million people have been out of work for six months or more. There are 4.7 job seekers for every job.

In that context, the National Employment Law Project's finding widespread discrimination against unemployed jobseekers is especially troubling:

NELP’s snapshot of jobs postings identified more than 150 ads that included exclusions based on current employment status, including 125 ads that identified specific companies by name. The overwhelming majority of the offending ads required that applicants “must be currently employed.” CareerBuilder.com and Indeed.com accounted for more than 75 percent of the exclusionary ads NELP identified. Staffing firms were prominently represented among those companies identified with the practice of excluding unemployed job seekers, accounting for about half of all the postings.

Significantly, the fact that NELP’s relatively limited research yielded such a broad cross-section of exclusionary ads—with postings for jobs throughout the United States, by small, medium and large employers, for white collar, blue collar, and service sector jobs, at virtually every skill level—suggests that the practice of excluding unemployed job seekers could be far more extensive than depicted in this limited sample.

Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Hank Johnson (D-GA) have introduced the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 in the House:

The Fair Employment Opportunity Act will prevent employers and employment agencies from refusing to consider or offer employment to someone who is unemployed, or including language in any job advertisements or postings that states unemployed individuals are not qualified.

It seems like a safe bet that Republicans will oppose this; after all, Democrats proposed it and it helps non-wealthy people. However, with NELP reporting that a recent poll found two-to-one support for a ban on discrimination against the unemployed, it'll be interesting to watch Republicans try to justify their opposition.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by Unemployment Chronicles.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  GOP too focused on anti-woman laws (15+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure how the rash of anti-abortion laws creates jobs....

  •  God... this is SO wrong! (16+ / 0-)

    We should be criminalizing unemployment and people will try harder to keep their jobs and not find ways to get laid off so they can live the Good Life™.

    Republicans HATE America. Deal with it. / It's the PLUTONOMY, Stupid!

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:20:24 AM PDT

  •  SSDD (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, cardinal, snazzzybird
    with NELP reporting that a recent poll found two-to-one support for a ban on discrimination against the unemployed, it'll be interesting to watch Republicans try to justify their opposition.

    It will be "interesting" in so far as repetition of anything is "interesting."

    Depending upon the questions (and how they are) asked, polls show a majority support Democratic, liberal, progressive agenda items on the economy, taxes, jobs,  federal budget, marriage equality, etc. ...and it sure has been "interesting" to watch the GOPoopers justify their opposition...

  •  about time (7+ / 0-)

    i remember once, back during the early 2000s recession, an agency told me that they would only look at people who've been in the same job for three years?  don't know wtf planet they were on, but that's barely normal even for good jobs anymore.

    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

    by Cedwyn on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:21:51 AM PDT

  •  They won't try to justify, (5+ / 0-)

    they just claim (as they often do); the American people want the Free Market to dictate who gets employed, not some law forcing employers to hire those lazy unemployed peoples.

    •  It IS insanely circular, isn't it? (9+ / 0-)

      The thinking goes:  those lazy people won't get jobs and just sit on their asses collecting unemployment!...well hell, who would want to hire some lazy unemployed person?...so, they can STAY unemployed and we can keep calling them lazy...even when they send out hundreds of resumes and go on interview after interview after interview...because they're lazy...

    •  Neat. I'm in the minority on this one. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, VClib

      I'm unemployed, having lost my public sector job when my state ran out of money, so I completely understand the frustration.

      But I am actually fine with the free market on this one.  Companies with inclusive hiring practices will thrive by having a wider pool of candidates.

      By legislating this one, I think we're just creating a new law that will cost government resources to enforce (if it's actually enforced).  Those are resources that could be used for teachers, cops, etc.

      •  if the scope of the problem were not so big (0+ / 0-)

        I might agree with you. But the "free market" is clearly dysfunctional.

        "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:16:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't the problem limited jobs? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          I agree that the free market isn't creating more jobs right now.

          But, this bill doesn't create more jobs.  For every one of us that get a job as a result of this bill that we wouldn't ordinarily get, there is someone else not getting the job.  There is no net improvement in the unemployment rate.

          In fact, given my previous argument that enforcing this law would cost government resources that could be spent elsewhere, there may be a net job loss.  

          •  The problem of not hiring unemployed people (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TexasTom

            is not simply due to limited jobs, in my view. It is an unfair prejudicial practice. Changing it doesn't mean that people who shouldn't get hired for positions will now get hired. Of course, increasing the number of jobs is critical, but the lack of jobs doesn't justify this practice. I think government resources spent on this are as justified as any government enforcement against unfair hiring practices.

            "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

            by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:41:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The idea is to get (0+ / 0-)

            the long term unemployed, those who stand in front of the line for a long time, to get out of the line.

            The current practice of hiring those who are employed is like a store setting up a line for a service and those who are serving stand outside of the store and serve those who they can pull off the street, completely ignoring the line.

      •  Got to ask, what are "those resources" actually (0+ / 0-)

        being used for?

        If Obama does "cuts," about all I expect, based on past performance of the Congress and The Only President We've Got is that all that wealth will be transferred to the war industries and the murderous fucks in the "financial industry."

        "Free market?" Where do you ever get the nerve to use that phrase any more? There is no such thing.

        "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

        by jm214 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:25:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  one in six of us have/had public sector jobs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          It makes sense to be angry about war and finance industry funding.  But, remember most of the people employed by the government are teachers, and policemen, and the like.  

          Even while overall job numbers have been going up in the last year, we've still been losing those public sector jobs.  Every burden we add to what we want the government to do costs more public jobs elsewhere in the budget.  

          It's the same argument made for legalization of marijuana.  If we didn't spend all that money enforcing anti-drug laws we'd have more funds to use for other government commitments.  Sometimes more laws is just a drain on resources.  Even morally sound ideas like this bill, which is designed to protect the disadvantaged, would not be productive policy overall.

          •  I worked for the government (and I like to think (0+ / 0-)

            "the people," for 16 years, as an attorney prosecuting consumer fraud in IL and as a US EPA enforcement attorney. I got a reasonable idea about funding and budgets and tradeoffs and decisions about enforcement and RIFs and a lot of other bits of what makes up "government" and the reasons we need "government."

            No disagreement that many, even most, public sector jobs, are valuable beyond the amount paid the worker. Not true of the Military, and I speak as a guy who enlisted in 1966 and did a year in Vietnam and who watches the trade press of the MIC and peeps at War Department public documents to see what that whole "War is a racket" bunch is up to.

            Yeah, this bill might create a really wasteful set of empire-building bureacratic pockets. Maybe it might at least trigger some people into taking LOCAL action to deal with what seems to me a problem of "moral turpitude:" the whole bovine acceptance of the American business model, more and more work from fewer and fewer people for less and less money until the "jobs" can get sent overseas. So skip the bit about this being "productive policy:" it's maybe an attempt by a few legislators to grandstand and pretend concern for the rest of us (and ex-GI unemployment is off the charts) but maybe there's some utility in flagging the issue.

            You got a better idea to address the American business model? or do we all just accept that that is the "new normal?"

            "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

            by jm214 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:34:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The bill is based on a good idea. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jm214

              It would be nice if those of us who are unemployed had an equal chance of finding jobs.

              I just don't know if it makes good policy.

              The invisible hand of the free market does influence some things.  In a perfect free market, like Somalia, it influences everything, and obviously, Somalia suffers for that.  The opposite would be having governmental controls on everything, but that wouldn't necessarily be better.  Clearly, here in the U.S. we pick and choose what aspects of the economy we want the government to spend resources regulating.  

              Just because the the libertarian wing of the teabaggers are batshit crazy for saying they want no regulation on anything doesn't mean that no regulation on some things wouldn't be better policy.

              I would guess that on this issue, leaving it alone would be have the desired effect.  Those that hire who choose to accept applications from everyone (those that already follow what this bill proposes) will have a market advantage by having a wider pool of candidates from which to choose the best candidate.  Those that hire who choose to discriminate will give themselves a competitive disadvantage and consequently suffer in the marketplace.  

              If my amateur economic analysis is correct, and if implementing this bill as a law would consume resources, then it doesn't make good policy even though it is grounded in empathetic ideals that are characteristic of the progressive movement.  Just because we care, doesn't mean we always should legislate caring.  

              Regarding better overall ideas, I only have the ones everyone else around here has:  end the wars; adopt the progressive caucus budget (or better); reinstate Eisenhower era tax rates and Eisenhower Farewell Address ideas.  Also, ponies for every good girl.

  •  That's a good sign, at least the practice will (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, AaronInSanDiego

    get some light shined onto it. But they are slick at skirting the rules. I wonder if incentives for hiring the unemployed would help.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

    •  And perhaps some states will be able to pass these (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      laws even if the feds don't act. But it should be nationwide.

    •  that's a thought. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, AaronInSanDiego

      in our metro area the classified ads take up 1 column in the paper.  using the state job search service all the unemployed have to use to qualifiy for unemployment,
      there are an average of 10 new postings a week. really?
      seems truck drivers and newspaper delivery people are
      on the up tick.

      so perhaps a tax credit to the employer that hires someone who has been unemployed for 6 months or more might be a help.

      the problem tho for the unemployed person is the job
      pays less than their unemployment. - add in child care,
      gasoline for the car, and if they are really fortunate a health insurance premium lower than cobra if at al........
      all the while knowing that they weren't the first choice,
      and that as soon as the tax credit expires so does the job.

  •  Republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, KibbutzAmiad, jm214

    could probably solve the problem with a few tax cuts,  It's worked soooo well for debt reduction and employment, I'm sure it will work for this.

    The saddest thing is some idiot will stand in the well and argue this exact point.

  •  You can pass a law, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, TexasTom

    that won't stop the practice from going on, especially since there's no way to prove it.

    •  That's why there are lawyers. (0+ / 0-)

      And settlements.  I certainly understand the point of the legislation, but the biggest beneficiaries will be HR consultants and employment lawyers.

    •  Not an argument against passing the law... (0+ / 0-)

      You're right -- it will rarely, if ever, get enforced if it is passed.  But let's face it...that is true for a lot of nondiscrimination laws.  As a gay person, I certainly favor laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, even though very, very few discrimination claims have ever been brought under this clause in areas that already have such laws.

      But they still send a moral statement that a particular type of discriminatory action is wrong.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:26:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  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.

  •  Employment agencies are the worst (0+ / 0-)

    Dealing with employment agencies are a necessary evil when you are unemployed.  Most of my job search is done without employment agencies, but if you post a resume on any of the large or even small job boards they will contact you.  They tend to get indignant if you do not jump to what they want, however they feel no need to respond to your inquiries about jobs they list on thier own websites or on the the major board sites.

  •  This sort of discrimination is just...stupid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, elfling, Mistral Wind

    So the only hiring these companies would do is steal employees from other companies? And they think they will get loyal employees by hiring only people who are willing to leave another job to hire on?

    This reminds me of a woman who is in a relationship with a married man. He says he will divorce his wife and marry her. And she thinks this is a good thing? How does she think he won't do the same thing to her? (Someone named Newt comes to mind.)

    Perhaps companies don't want loyal employees anymore.

    We need this law for their own good.

    (Note: I don't think they will let this law stop them, of course. My husband is unemployed--and facing not only this, but age discrimination. The law doesn't stop that either. But having it at least codifies societal disapproval.)

    Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. --Emma Goldman

    by Siusaidh on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:59:02 AM PDT

    •  Interesting analogy, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phonegery

      but my memory of my horrible years on the dating market is that that's exactly how it played out. "You're how old and not currently in a relationship? You must be damaged goods." It was a vicious cycle, just like the employment market (which I was also struggling with at the same time).

      Families is where a nation finds hope, where wings take dream.

      by cardinal on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:20:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's exactly how hiring works (4+ / 0-)

        Been on the hiring side.  Someone who has been laid off is considered suspect.  "Why was this person let go?  If they were a winner, they would have been kept on?".

        Doesn't matter if their prior employer is undergoing a well publicized downsizing.  Somehow it is always the employee's failing that causes unemployment.

        This is what a pathological belief in individual responsibility accomplishes.  For 30 years we have been told that people make their own destiny.  Now we have millions of unemployed who are frozen out of society.

  •  The Laziest, Stupidest, Most Bigotted, Most (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DBoon

    counterproductive people do the hiring in this country according to their personal prejudices and openly lie about it.
    That's why the hiring game is totally devoid of any honesty or openness.

    The first 2 seconds make or break the interview because personnel trash are concerned with appearances and NOT substance.

    The bigots and assholes who do the hiring have had their integrity legislated by Congress because they have none!  

    "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" means that the pieces of shit doing the hiring wherever it is proudly displayed have serious integrity problems.
    (I live in northcentral Pa. where there are few people of color and every employer is an "Equal Opportunirty Employer" but you can't verify it by their workforces or the number of Confederate license plates on 4-wheel drive pick-up trucks with lift kits in the company parking lots.)

    Human resources bigots, liars, and assholes harm their businesses with their personal prejudices and closed-mindedness and then complain how they can't hire good people.
    Bigots, Liars, and Assholes hire other bigots, liars, and assholes!

    That's the reason we can't compete with the Chinese, NOT Chinese slave labor but counterproductive, obscenely overpaid, irresponsible, stupid fucking assholes and bigots whose only contribution to life in Amerika is producing the need for more government regulations concerning their shitty values and behavior.

    CRIMINALIZE employment discrimination and make it a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence in the penitentiary.
    It's time to make personnel trash unemployable by their own sick standards and have them live with people they irrationally hate so much.

    It's time that all employers were forced to open up the hiring process and give concrete, verifiable answers to all job applicants as to why they weren't hired and why the person who was hired was hired.  If there is any discrepancy between realty and the employers' bullshit, then the matter should go to trial quickly.  
    There should no longer be a waiting period of 180 days (Pa HRC) or 365 days (Federal EEOC) to sue employers as the law currently requires (because corporate trash bribed legislators for that special protection).

    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -- M/Y/A/S/S
    Race
    Gender
    Credit Rating
    Clothes
    Grooming
    Handicap
    Connections
    Employment Status
    Political Correctness
    Arrest (NOT Conviction) Record
    Other NON-Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications

    These are meritorious corporate values for hiring and promotion which get noted on those Confidential Interview Notes that personnel bigots make at interviews, but personnel trash falsely claim they embrace Diversity when they actually demand Conformity.  

    If you offend the prejudices of personnel bigots, liars, and assholes, then you will be deemed to be unemployable and informed that "you are not a good fit for the company".

    •  bhl - criminalize hiring? (0+ / 0-)

      That's frightening and would be a very good way to send the rest of our jobs to China.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:35:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Open The Process & Criminalize Discrimination (0+ / 0-)

        Personnel assholes and bigots have a profoundly adverse impact on society with their lack of integrity.

        Confidential interview notes made by personnel bigots and assholes usually note inappropriate and illegal non-BFOQ comments of an extremely stupid and prejdiced nature.

        When these unskilled no talent bums who are personnel bigots and assholes put themselves at the top of the pay scale, productivity is compromised and the company becomes less competitive.  Taxpayers sometimes have to bail out these businesses (like they did with GM) because of this kind of mismanagement.

        The entire hiring game lacks honesty and openness because personnel assholes would get assaulted or killed if they revealled how they really "Judge" others.

        The misogynist would say, "I believe all women should be working -- in the kitchen and the bedroom."

        The racist would say, "We don't have anything against n*ggers, we just don't hire lazy, shiftless drug addicts."

        My interviewing experiences were with the oil, chemical, and nuclear power industries that are right-wing rethug and teabagger enterprises (like Kochroach Industries, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, BP, GPU's 3 Mile Island, Texaco -- now defunct, DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide of Bhopal, India fame, Rohm & Haas, Monsanto, Lonza, etc.).  They're overwhelming if not exclusively white, male, and ultraconservative politically.

        Of course, my long hair was especially irritating to these personnel asholes and bigots and was prominently noted as being "clean", and their open contempt for government regulations that affected profits and disdain for environmental protection and workplace safety was particularly offensive to me.  

        I have NEVER met any personnel asshole, liar, or bigot, including the employment agency garbage that do the illegal discrimination for corporations, who had any trace of moral or intellectual integrity.

  •  the bill quickly gained 30 co-sponsors (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, DebtorsPrison

    Here's the list of current co-sponsors of HR 2501, the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011.

    If your House member is not listed you should give them a holler.

    Not Ideas about the Thing but the Thing Itself - Wallace Stevens

    by catchlightning on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:07:00 AM PDT

  •  Filtering applicants (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DBoon, phonegery, VClib

    I think this practice is more pragmatic then intentionally discriminatory.
    The value statement would go.
    Want to only look at applicants who:
    1. Can do the work
    2. Don't need expensive training

    Jut steal someone from another company that already does the exact work you need done and pay them a little more.

    This practice has negative externality that no one wants to provide training (aka hire the unemployed). Because its expensive and the trained employee will just leave for higher wages once they have the skills. So the employer that provides the training doesn't reap any benefit.

  •  If you've been told you'd not be considered for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DebtorsPrison, elfling, Mistral Wind

    a specific job explicitly because you're unemployed, you can tell NELP your story at this link via Unemployedworkers.org

    Not Ideas about the Thing but the Thing Itself - Wallace Stevens

    by catchlightning on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:12:45 AM PDT

  •  A law won't help (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery

    Private employers can deny you for whatever BS reason they want. Passing a law means they just find some random excuse not to hire you.

  •  Germany does a better job on this. (5+ / 0-)

    When business slows they move some people on the job part time with unemployment making part of the lost income. When business picks up they can go back to full time, and are still up to date with the latest technologies and procedures. They don't have the stigma of long term unemployment and they are not out of practice.

    Germany does a better job developing and protecting human capital.

    "Fourthly, of the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society. The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit.”
    Adam Smith
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
  •  I realize in many ways that it is symbolic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery

    that companies will still find ways to discriminate, just as they do against women who are pregnant or people who have had cancer or black people or any of the other exciting qualities that can keep you from getting a job.

    But sometimes symbolism is important.

    At the very least, companies will have to consciously decide they are going to break the law.

    At the very least, they will have to accept resumes from people who may be fabulous that before they would have denied.

    It costs nothing and it's a positive step. Bravo.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:44:33 AM PDT

  •  That chart instructs me (0+ / 0-)

    When the unemployment numbers get really low and things seem to be going well..batten down the hatches and lay in supplies!

    "You can't run a country by a book of religion. Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." Frank Zappa

    by Uosdwis on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:48:57 AM PDT

  •  $25 for a basic incorporation package... (0+ / 0-)

    John Doe is unemployed.  John Doe spends $25 to incorporate John Doe LLP (Inc, whatever) in Delaware.  John Doe is now employed by John Doe Inc.  John Doe is now looking for an alternate position and to leave John Doe Inc as the Great Depression has been a great detriment to John Doe Inc over the 30 or so seconds it's been in existence...

    Not only, but also, John Doe is now a salt-of-the-earth small businessman!

  •  Here's what I don't understand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk

    "Unemployed" is an employment status, part of the applicant's employment history. It's not a personal "state of being", like other protected classes. Why should that single out the applicant for any specific protections? Why should an employer be able to refuse to hire someone because they don't like that they're currently a consultant, or that they currently own their own business, but they can't refuse to hire someone who is currently unemployed?

    I understand the sentiment, and I think it's incredibly short-sighted and ignorant on the company's part to have a policy like that. But I think it's a company's right to consider all aspects of an applicant's employment history, and I don't think it's appropriate to make being unemployed a "protected class".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site