What sounds like a bid for this fall’s hot, new courtroom reality show is actually a part of the job creation bill that President Barack Obama sent to Congress last month. The bill, H.R. 2501, would allow the unemployed to sue for discrimination on the basis that they were denied employment due to being unemployed. The Senate will hold a procedural vote on the bill tonight to determine if the bill will move forward or if it will get the ax.
After one sifts through the bill, trying to untangle the little mess of words, it essentially boils down to this: The bill would ban signs declaring that those who are unemployed are ineligible to be hired. That’s the sensible part.
The theory is that the skills of the long-term unemployed have deteriorated, making them less hirable due to the need for retraining in the positions they are applying for. This makes applying for a new job even more difficult for the long-term unemployed. If the trend continues, it could prevent an entire segment of the population, over 6.2 million Americans, from being employed because they slipped past the six-month deadline and are now ineligible.
I can agree to that part, and applaud the removal of those unnecessary signs. I would even agree to extend the provision to ban company policies against hiring the jobless. What baffles me, however, is the rest of the provision that would, in turn, allow the long-term unemployed to sue a company that refused to hire them on the basis of “discrimination of the jobless.”
At this point it’s less about giving the jobless an equal footing with their potential employers, and more about giving the jobless a stick and telling them to keep whacking at every eligible company until someone either hires them or pays up.
Then what? Let’s take a step-by-step look at how this would work.
Our friend Jim has been out of work for about six months now and applies at JobCorp. They turn down his application. Regardless of whether it was stated outright or not, or if it was even true or not, let’s assume Jim was a victim of job discrimination. So he goes to the law offices of Lawyer & Lawyer, who now specialize in job discrimination cases, malpractice suits and cases involving hot coffee and people that don’t like to read. The fine gentlemen at Lawyer & Lawyer take up his case, and a long legal battle ensues where everyone is dragged through the mud. In the end, Jim wins and JobCorp gives him a massive settlement.
There are a few ways this will continue to play out:
In scenario one, Jim gets the settlement but still doesn’t get the job he applied for because, well, he just went and upset the people who didn’t want to hire him to begin with. He has now alienated himself from every other company.
This will probably lead to scenario two:
Jim gets a job, but it’s not the one he wants or for the pay he desires. Anyone that Jim goes to in the future, JobCorp or otherwise, might just stick him with some demeaning job in order to defend themselves from being slapped with a lawsuit.
Suing companies for not hiring you isn’t going to end well in the long run. This will put you on a blacklist with all other companies that company is associated with. And, it’s easy to forget that the legal process is long and costly, often taking months, even years, for a conclusion.
Jim may get his settlement, but now he has legal fees to pay and is unemployable for an entirely different reason. His legal case could take money away from a small company, which could decide to lay off a few of its employees to offset legal costs, creating more unemployment.
It’s an endless, vicious cycle that fails to solve the actual lack of jobs, while at the same time giving Obama another talking point for the 2012 presidential election.
Whether refusing to hire someone due to their joblessness is discrimination, it’s less about his or her employment status and more about what being unemployed actually means.
According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the longer a person is out of work, the more “they lose their skills, they lose their connections, they lose their knowledge of what’s happened in their line of work.”
Understandably, this makes them look less appealing than potential employees with less-eroded skills. But this is of no fault to the individual who was unable to find a job, or to the company unable to hire that individual in the face of better prospects with more recent and relevant knowledge.
There’s no race, creed, age or gender stipulation involved. To imply that joblessness qualifies as discrimination would imply that first-time job seekers should file legal claims that, because they had no job experience, they were discriminated against in favor of people with more job experience.
It’s an unfortunate situation, but lashing out at employers with frivolous lawsuits isn’t the answer. The answer is to find a way to create more jobs. The question, however, is: How?
James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at [email protected].
The logic of how a jobless person looses his skill set in such short order utterly fails me. And your hypotheticals are based on what? Experience with discrimination law? Here's another scenario: Our boy, Jim, gets a decent job from an employer worried that, by not hiring Jim's jobless ass, he'll get sue-happy. It happens all the time in other scenarios, and its called affirmative action. And let's not forget the unqualified folks who, because they're on food stamps, are a vet, or have a disability, get a job although they are clearly unqualified. Those are the folks Jim will be competing with in the marketplace. A marketplace, I might add , that is awash with mediocre applicants and workers in a country whose once shining pride in craftsmanship, buoyed by a serious work ethic has been laid in the dust by years of mindless over-regulation and political correctness. Replaced by: Made in China, etc. Hooray for Obama! Another layer of crap added to the already eviscerating employment laws. God bless America.
Not to mention, basically the author is saying – this is a good law, but you shouldn't be able to enforce it.
It would be just like saying that you can't refuse to hire someone because they're black, but they can't sue. We have common law in the US. Lawsuits are how we make sure the little guy has recourse against getting screwed over.
Also, are there really still people making fun of the McDonalds coffee suit? I'd have thought that was widely known to be legitimate at this point. She was 79 years old and had 3rd degree burns over a 6th of her body. She offered to settle for the medical bills only and they refused. Coffee is generally served at about 140 degrees, the coffee in question was 180 degrees.
There are way better examples of why we need tort reform. Do your research first, even on side comments.
Not to mention, basically the author is saying – this is a good law, but you shouldn't be able to enforce it.
It would be just like saying that you can't refuse to hire someone because they're black, but they can't sue. We have common law in the US. Lawsuits are how we make sure the little guy has recourse against getting screwed over.
Also, are there really still people making fun of the McDonalds coffee suit? I'd have thought that was widely known to be legitimate at this point. She was 79 years old and had 3rd degree burns over a 6th of her body. She offered to settle for the medical bills only and they refused. Coffee is generally served at about 140 degrees, the coffee in question was 180 degrees.
There are way better examples of why we need tort reform. Do your research first, even on side comments.
This bill is nothing more than a jobs killing bill. Why should anyone in their right mind start or keep their business open, when businesses are being told who to hire.
.
Ronald Reagan has always been right. Government is the problem.
I was just thinking to myself "We need more litigation in our society." Once again, President Obama is way ahead of me.
Don't take your eye off the ball. The problem is not discrimination, it's the economic torpor. You can't outlaw racism, unfortunately, and trying to do so only makes you yourself a bigot. Better to led these people breed themselves out by having a robust economy which induces specialization which demands more education which – eliminates racism.
Just what we need to foster more employment: Create a new victim class…the unemployed
Enormously misguided
Flag Goofy Job Ads!
Don't count on government intervention, it's time to take matters into our own hands. All of the job sites have a "flag" or "report" button on the pages the ads are hosted on. Click those buttons when you see an ad telling the unemployed not to apply, requiring a credit check for a position that does not handle money, or requiring a disproportionate amount of experience for a job (Such as 10 years of experience for an entry level position).
It's time for the job seekers, the unemployed, and the employed who are just sick of what's going on to exercise their rights and…
Flag Goofy Job Ads!
Flag Goofy Job Ads!
Don't count on government intervention, it's time to take matters into our own hands. All of the job sites have a "flag" or "report" button on the pages the ads are hosted on. Click those buttons when you see an ad telling the unemployed not to apply, requiring a credit check for a position that does not handle money, or requiring a disproportionate amount of experience for a job (Such as 10 years of experience for an entry level position).
It's time for the job seekers, the unemployed, and the employed who are just sick of what's going on to exercise their rights and…
Flag Goofy Job Ads!