PDA

View Full Version : American Jobs Act: No Discrimination Against Unemployed People


sugarkang
09-14-2011, 12:29 PM
Article (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/181323-obamas-jobs-plan-would-make-it-illegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed).
American Jobs Act (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/americanjobsact.pdf).

It's exactly what we needed, but it doesn't go far enough to combat discrimination. For example, we need strip clubs to stop discriminating on the basis of looks. It should be illegal for them to hire on the basis of age, weight and personal appearance.

graz
09-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Article (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/181323-obamas-jobs-plan-would-make-it-illegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed).
American Jobs Act (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/americanjobsact.pdf).

It's exactly what we needed, but it doesn't go far enough to combat discrimination. For example, we need strip clubs to stop discriminating on the basis of looks. It should be illegal for them to hire on the basis of age, weight and personal appearance.

Are you suggesting that it's unenforceable counsellor?
Or are you salivating at the prospect of all the potential lawsuits?
You know -- you can finally get some work.

stephanie
09-14-2011, 12:38 PM
exactly what we needed, but it doesn't go far enough to combat discrimination. For example, we need strip clubs to stop discriminating on the basis of looks. It should be illegal for them to hire on the basis of age, weight and personal appearance.

Yep, being already employed bears the same relationship to the job requirements of any other job as one's physical appearance bears to the job requirements of being a stripper.

miceelf
09-14-2011, 01:09 PM
It's exactly what we needed, but it doesn't go far enough to combat discrimination. For example, we need strip clubs to stop discriminating on the basis of looks. It should be illegal for them to hire on the basis of age, weight and personal appearance.

I don't understand the parallel at all.

In the case of strippers, one can argue that the job demands require a certain type of physical appearance. It's unclear how already having a job is a necessity for most jobs, unless the job is teaching people how to get jobs.

if your argument is that this will not allow employers to weed out people who are unemployed because they are incompetent or not qualified or lack relevant experience, or have a poor work ethic, one should be able to demonstrate the superiority of the hired candidate in any of these regards.

Gomerts fantasies are exactly the same thing one could apply to any kind of workplace disrimination law.

From the act itself, and thanks for posting it:


Nothing in this Act is intended to preclude an employer or employment agency from considering an individualís employment history, or from examining the reasons underlying an individualís status as unemployed, in assessing an individualís ability to perform a job or in otherwise making employment decisions about that individual. Such consideration or examination may include an assessment of whether an individualís employment in a similar or related job for a period of time reasonably proximate to the consideration of such individual for employment is job-related or consistent with business necessity.

sugarkang
09-15-2011, 01:08 AM
I don't understand the parallel at all.

It's not one law or a few laws that create the problem.

Here's a big survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/surveys/small-business-economic-trends). Download the PDF if interested.

Look at the biggest three problems cited: sales, regulation and taxes. Assuming everyone hates taxes and sales is just the demand problem, we have regulation. And that has spiked upward in the last few years.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6848/captureoc.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/217/captureoc.png/)

miceelf
09-15-2011, 07:17 AM
Look at the biggest three problems cited: sales, regulation and taxes. Assuming everyone hates taxes and sales is just the demand problem, we have regulation. And that has spiked upward in the last few years.

Yes. The last time businesses though regulations were this much of a problem was in that heyday of unemployment, 1996.

sugarkang
09-15-2011, 09:05 AM
Yes. The last time businesses though regulations were this much of a problem was in that heyday of unemployment, 1996.

People likely stopped caring in the Clinton years because the economy was humming along. Still, regulations have been added since then and they've become a burden. Don't you wonder if these laws actually do what they purport to do or do you think the intentions are good enough?

badhatharry
09-15-2011, 12:23 PM
Article (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/181323-obamas-jobs-plan-would-make-it-illegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed).
American Jobs Act (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/americanjobsact.pdf).



So, this is what the act says according to the article:

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.


This doesn't appear to have any teeth. All an employer has to do is not put that bit in an ad about not considering the unemployed and then not disclosing that was the reason for the person not getting the job. This can not be legislated and is ultimately just a feel good move.

miceelf
09-15-2011, 07:13 PM
People likely stopped caring in the Clinton years because the economy was humming along. Still, regulations have been added since then and they've become a burden. Don't you wonder if these laws actually do what they purport to do or do you think the intentions are good enough?

I am sure that there is no law out there that prevents 100% of the crimes they are meant to prevent. i still believe, however, that even a law as frequently broken as speed limits is still, on balance a good law. If nothing else, because it somewhat reduces the liklihood of the egregious violations.

sugarkang
09-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Regarding the original topic.

Tyler Cowen (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/assorted-links-226.html) intimates that it's one of the worst ideas ever.
He links to Mickey Kaus (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/09/obamas-worst-idea/) who also thinks this is stupid. Oh, but it does create new potential for litigation. Yay?

Overall, I liked the President's speech and I can support most of the proposals. But it's shit like this that creates a lot of doubt as to whether he wants to remove onerous regulations like he said. Best case scenario is that he removes a few stupid laws and adds new stupid laws. More likely scenario is that he adds a bunch of new stupid laws and keeps almost all the old stupid laws.

Even if this Jobs Act isn't designed to pass before 2012, it would serve as a primer for new legislation in the event that Obama is re-elected.

miceelf
09-26-2011, 10:36 PM
Looks like both my presidential candidate and yours agree on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/new-jersey-bans-unemployed-job-discrimination_n_853513.html

Ocean
09-26-2011, 11:03 PM
Looks like both my presidential candidate and yours agree on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/new-jersey-bans-unemployed-job-discrimination_n_853513.html

Is Democrat Celeste Riley your presidential candidate? ;)

miceelf
09-27-2011, 12:47 AM
Is Democrat Celeste Riley your presidential candidate? ;)

Obama is mine and Christie is his.

Ocean
09-27-2011, 08:26 AM
Obama is mine and Christie is his.

Well, yes, but, it was Democratic Representative Celeste Riley who introduced the bill, later signed by Christie.

sugarkang
09-27-2011, 08:59 AM
Obama is mine and Christie is his.

Obama makes me unhappy, too. I'm still voting for him. And I'll continue to complaint about him. That said, I can't believe Christie did that. Fat people. The nerve.

miceelf
09-27-2011, 10:17 AM
Well, yes, but, it was Democratic Representative Celeste Riley who introduced the bill, later signed by Christie.

Yes, but my point is that sugar, who complains about this at the federal level, is a big Christie fan.

Ocean
09-27-2011, 09:02 PM
Yes, but my point is that sugar, who complains about this at the federal level, is a big Christie fan.

Okay, yes, I got it.