How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Catch-22, Revised   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Catch-22, Revised

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 09-28-2011 10:40 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination
By Zachary Roth | The Lookout –

Advocates for the unemployed have cheered a push by the Obama administration to ban discrimination against the jobless. But business groups and their allies are calling the effort unnecessary and counterproductive.

The job creation bill that President Obama sent to Congress earlier this month includes a provision that would allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue if they think a company of 15 more employees denied them a job because they were unemployed.

The provision would ban employment ads that explicitly declare the unemployed ineligible, with phrases like "Jobless need not apply." As The Lookout has reported, such ads appear to have proliferated in recent years, prompting an inquiry by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Advocates for employers oppose the proposed ban. "We do not see a need for it," Michael Eastman of the Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times.

Lawrence Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, told the paper the president's proposal "opens another avenue of employment litigation and nuisance lawsuits."

Louie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, went further. He told the Times that the proposal would send the following message: "If you're unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you were unemployed."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-proposes-letting-jobless-sue-discrimination-191042168.html

I see a whole lotta lawyers (those rich people on Obama's hit list) getting a lot richer. This definitely falls into the "Beam me up, Scotty" category!

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 09-28-2011 12:50 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The provision would ban employment ads that explicitly declare the unemployed ineligible, with phrases like "Jobless need not apply."

It's been a while since I've looked at the Help Wanted section, Mike, but if those things are actually happening in today's world I think we must be well beyond the "Beam me up, Scotty" stage. Sounds to me like we've passed right Through The Looking-Glass.

"But I don't want to go among mad people," said Alice. "Oh, you can't help that," said the cat. "We're all mad here."
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 09-28-2011 01:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I haven't, either, Ron, but i'll bet the farm that if there are ads like that out there it will be microscopic minority of ads posted, unworthy of this action
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


3 posted 09-28-2011 04:56 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I don't know, Mike, the number of murders in Colon is pretty microscopic, too, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to advocate ignoring them.

Don't get me wrong, if I knew enough to make an informed decision I suspect I would agree with you entirely, albeit for very different reasons (my reasons, for example, would not include an instant distrust of everything Obama). I dislike all unnecessary government intervention and think that covers about 95 percent of everything they do. This certainly sounds like it falls in that 95 percent.

I'm much more interested in discovering WHY an employer might want to avoid hiring unemployed job applicants. Makes no sense to me.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 09-28-2011 05:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, you may believe this or not but I'll swear on my TaylorMade 9 degree driver that I would consider this ridiculous, no matter who was in the White House.

Why would an employer do it? According to the articles I saw, certain companies want people for specialized work and they feel that applicants who have been out of work for a while are either rusty or haven't kept up with the technology.

Regardless of that, I repeat the amount of that would have to be microscopic. Do you see the can of worms this would open, Ron? Anyone who wanted to, would claim they weren't hired because they were unemployed? Why shouldn't they? The lawyers would take the case. Why shouldn't they? It doesn't matter if the employers put up an ad like that or not. The lawyer would file the claim and, even if untrue, the employers would have to appear in court and prove that was not the case. They would have to justify why they didn't hire ever person they didn't hire. Multiply that by tens of thousands. Companies would be crazy to even post want ads. They would have to go around in the shadows and find people to fill positions without being public about it. The court dockets, which are already overbooked would collapse under the weight as lawyers got fatter and companies got broker.

I cannot in my wildest dreams supporting this insane idea, even democrats sticking up for Obama.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


5 posted 09-28-2011 10:35 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Anyone who wanted to, would claim they weren't hired because they were unemployed?

Yea, they could, I suppose.

Or they could claim they weren't hired because they were the wrong color, wrong ethnicity, wrong gender, wrong age, wrong sexual orientation, yada yada yada. They could. Some maybe even do.

Still, I'm not sure the potential misuse of a law (and every law has potential for misuse) should ever be a consideration for whether the law is needed. You close the loopholes as best you can, then you let the system (heaven help us all) deal with the misfits.

Personally, I think any company that wants to pigeon-hole prospective employees, rather than hire the best person for the job, should be allowed to fall to market forces when they can no longer compete with less short sighted companies. Any business one who thinks people have to be unemployed to become rusty or fall behind on technology won't be in business very long. And that's exactly as it should be.

If you really want to talk about bad laws, Mike, let's talk about the Patriot Act some more.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 09-28-2011 10:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Forget the side roads, Ron. So you think this law is needed?

You think it's the same as profiling for race, creed or religion? Ok, you surprise me once again....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


7 posted 09-28-2011 11:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

http://blogs.app.com/capitolquickies/2011/03/31/christie-signs-bill-stopping-companies-from-excluding-unemployed-in-help-wanted-ads/
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 09-28-2011 11:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Read my post again, Mike.

No, I don't think the law is necessary, though I also admit to being less than informed. No, I don't think it's the same as profiling for race, creed or religion, but those are just as open to abuse as you suggested this one would be. I also don't think it's the same as murder, of course, but again, murder is just as microscopic in scope, relatively, as you suggested incidents cited in the article are.

In short, and as I already said, I suspect we agree. I just don't feel any of the reasons you've presented are good reasons for opposing ANY legislation. Do we really want to judge laws by how much lawyers can profit, or by how infrequent the law will be employed, or by the possibility some yoyo might abuse it? I just think we need better standards than those suggest.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 09-29-2011 12:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Do we really want to judge laws by how much lawyers can profit, or by how infrequent the law will be employed, or by the possibility some yoyo might abuse it?

Oh, there would be no infrequency here at all. There would be an overwhelming use of it. I can see the lawyers advertisements now, aimed at people who wouldn't have to pay anyway. The possibility some yoyo might abuse it? Possibility, Ron? Surely you jest. And what would this law be about....not hiring someone if they are unemployed. I think any rational person would consider that to be nothing more that a SNL skit.

You know, I think I always had hopes, or at least the fancy, that some topic, some day would come into the Alley that all would agree with, regardless of our own political leanings. I actually thought this might be the one. I was wrong and that fantasy, or even hope, is gone with the wind. I see it as being impossible now.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 09-29-2011 12:10 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good link, LR.

Christie’s amendments to soften penalties against employers gained final approval in the Senate on March 21. The governor’s changes include imposing penalties only upon the finding that a violation was committed “”knowingly or purposefully,” rather than if an ad was “suggesting” that out-of-work people couldn’t go for a job.

That's  the right way to handle it, not by saying that people could sue if they "felt" the employer didn't hire them because they were unemployed. Obama slipped this into his jobs bill and, I would guess, hoped it would slip through, untouched.

Try again, Barack..
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 09-29-2011 02:09 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     How are you supposed to get a job if not having a job is grounds for not hiring you, Mike?  And if unemployment benefits run out, the people without work are supposed to do — what?

     Your logic is that we should blame people without jobs for not working, and then punish them by letting them starve for their lack of American values.  But we should forbid them to actually act as though being unemployed were reason to be hired.  

     The people that we should hire, therefore, are people who are already working, and who don't need jobs.

     I think I have your logic down now.

     Perhaps we should also fine the unemployed, and jail them for debt.  If they fall far enough behind, we could sell their bodies for spare parts.  It would be a real, hands-on solution to the population problem, and to the possible problem with food and fresh water.  And if we kill all the lawyers first, nobody will be around to raise all those annoying legal objections to what seems like a good solid Republican plan.  

     Now, if we could only find some way to privatize the body market and arrange for people to buy some sort of futures in body parts, some sort of pre-ownship scheme, where people in good standing might arrange a stable of good genetic stock to use for labor, and for high quality spare parts.  We should probably go to Newt for a good historical consult on this question.  There ought to be a profit in it someplace....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 09-29-2011 02:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Bob, for verifying my last comment to Ron. Your response is not worthy of anyone with any degree of intelligence.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


13 posted 09-29-2011 02:26 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


The way you tell it Mike it sounds like a really bad idea, however when you read the actual bill it sounds like a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation. Here's the main points in the Obama bill:

(a) Employers- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to--
(1) publish in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for an employee for any job that includes:
(A) any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for any employment opportunity; or
(B) any provision stating or indicating that an employer will not consider or hire an individual for any employment opportunity based on that individual's status as unemployed; or
(2) fail or refuse to consider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed;
(3) direct or request that an employment agency take an individual's status as unemployed into account to disqualify an applicant for consideration, screening, or referral for employment as an employee...
...damages may be awarded in an amount not to exceed $5,000.


Hmm.. Sounds suspiciously similar to the NJ legislation:

1. No employer or employer's agent, representative, or designee shall publish, in print or on the Internet, an advertisement for any job vacancy that contains one or more of the following:
a. Any provision stating or suggesting that the qualifications for a job include current employment;
b. Any provision stating or suggesting that the employer or employer's agent, representative, or designee will not consider or review an application for employment submitted by any job applicant currently unemployed; or
c. Any provision stating or suggesting that the employer or employer's agent, representative, or designee will only consider or review applications for employment submitted by job applicants who are currently employed.
2. Any employer who violates this act shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation, collectible by the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development in a summary proceeding pursuant to the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).


So how come Obama's bill is so bad and the bill Christie signed is 'the right way to handle it'?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 09-29-2011 06:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good question, Uncas. In your two comparison I don't see much of a difference, either. LR submitted a link which claimed there was a big difference between the two. Perhaps one should ask him why he submitted it.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


15 posted 09-29-2011 07:09 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
In your two comparison I don't see much of a difference, either.


That's probably because there isn't much difference between the two Mike and yet you suggested that one is 'the right way to handle it' and the other is a recipe for disaster. Do you still believe that and if so why?

quote:
LR submitted a link which claimed there was a big difference between the two. Perhaps one should ask him why he submitted it.


I have to admit that I didn't read the article LR linked to Mike, I presumed, given the text of the url, that LR was trying to make the point that Christie had signed similar legislation into law. I've read it now though and frankly I don't see anything in it that suggests that the bill Christie signed was any different than Obama's bill, in fact Obama's bill isn't even mentioned in the article.

LR,

Do you think the two bills are inherently different?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


16 posted 09-29-2011 08:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

  
     Dear Mike,  Your response to me would get a more thoughtful response from me if it addressed the points I made without taking a shot at my IQ or my insight.  In either case, IQ or Insight, you would need to supply evidence or, at a minimum, logic instead of suggesting that I was making poor use of my intellect.  I have never felt that speaking with you was squandering my intellect, and I don’t feel that I am doing so now.

     I would appreciate it if you would use some of yours to respond to my critique of your logic and your reasoning, and how they seem to contradict your position on unemployment and welfare benefits and how we should curtail them.  Discrimination against unemployed folks forces an artificially lengthy period of high unemployment into a job market that is already depressed without having an advantage given to folks who are already employed.  Are you suggesting that the recovery be artificially delayed and the suffering extended for electoral purposes?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 09-29-2011 09:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The link makes no claim of a difference between the two bills.  The posted date should be clue enough.

There may or may not be glaring differences, but, given the difference between Bob Dole's healthcare plan, Romneycare, and Obamacare, it seems the main difference that earns the ire of Republicans is that Obama is for it.

'mom! he's touching me!'
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


18 posted 09-29-2011 09:34 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If a company can come up with a respectable reason and context to justify it, it should be allowed.  But if a company doesn't have any good reasons/context/justification for doing it, it should be penalized for undue discrimination.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 09-29-2011 10:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

frankly I don't see anything in it that suggests that the bill Christie signed was any different than Obama's bill, - Uncas


The link makes no claim of a difference between the two bills. = LR

Ok, I guess we just read things differenty For example....

Christie’s amendments to soften penalties against employers To me that says that his bill would be softening penalties. Softening penalties compared to what? The only thing that comes to mind to compare it to, the bill that created or called for penalties in the first place, would be Obama's bill, as far as I know

The link makes a comparison about imposing penalties only upon the finding that a violation was committed “”knowingly or purposefully,” rather than if an ad was “suggesting” that out-of-work people couldn’t go for a job.. When you say "rather than" you are comparing. I took that as a comparison between Christie's bill and Obama's. That's why I favored Christie's bill, not having seen Obama's. If I read it wrong, then that's my fault.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 09-29-2011 10:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Depend on what "is" is, Huh?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 09-29-2011 10:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I am not interested in getting a more thoughtful response from you.....or even any response at all.

Your logic is that we should blame people without jobs for not working, and then punish them by letting them starve for their lack of American values.

You state that my logic has no problem with letting people starve, another personal insult against my character. I've had it with you and your personal insults against me. Save your "thoughtful responses" for someone who will appreciate them more, please. I'm not interested in them.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


22 posted 09-30-2011 12:05 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Look at the date Mike.  There was no Obama proposal at the time.  The referenced post is merely talking about the iterative process of legislating.

Sorry if you feel misled.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 09-30-2011 12:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Not misled, LR. I simply wasn't thorough enough to catch that. My mistake.

I still don't understand the wording of it, though. I mean, if one is going to soften penalties, then there must have been penalties in place to soften so who imposed those penalties and, if there were penalties in place, then why would Obama come up with a bill to impose penalties? I can understand Christie coming up with a plan to "soften" but I doubt that would be Obama's motive so....it's too confusing for me. Think I'll go to bed and not sleep on it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 09-30-2011 02:57 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Your logic is that we should blame people without jobs for not working, and then punish them by letting them starve for their lack of American values.

You state that my logic has no problem with letting people starve, another personal insult against my character. I've had it with you and your personal insults against me. Save your "thoughtful responses" for someone who will appreciate them more, please. I'm not interested in them.  



     Actually, if you read what I said — and which you even go so far as to quote — you will notice that I’m talking about problems with your logic, and that I thought your logic seemed muddled and contradictory.  Your logic, in this case, was part of your discussion, and I thought your logic was convoluted and contradictory.  I am talking here about the points you were making and how they contradict each other.  Your logic doesn’t have any problem with letting people starve; that’s the nature of this sort of argument, that’s makes it so disheartening; the logic doesn’t have any problem with letting people starve.

     You, I think, do have a problem with having people starve.

     I think that you are upset because you don’t think of yourself as being the kind of person who would support that sort of position, being a compassionate guy in so many ways, and the notion of supporting such an ugly position as allowing people to starve may be upsetting for you.  Yet that is exactly where the logic of the position you are advocating ends up.

     I simply don’t think you’ve followed the logic of the position you’re advocating through, and what it mean in practice.  When faced with the outcome of such a chain of logic, you feel furious — it sounds like from your responses.  Yet I am offering a thoughtful response.  I don’t claim absolute authority about anything.  But punishing a guy’s attempt to get back to work is not a particularly good idea, especially not before knowing what he or she has to offer by even having a look at a resume.  There is an authentic difference between microeconomic and macroeconomic points of view.  You spoke about the microeconomic point of view, that of the individual company.  It’s an important point of view but not the only point of view.  There is also a macroeconomic point of view, which has to do with management of the economy overall, and here there is a conflict.  What’s good for the country is not only keeping people working, but getting people back to work, and getting them back to work in good jobs.  Keeping people at work is nice.  Getting people back to work gets the economy going again, and that’s what the economy as a whole needs.

     Getting people with bad skills back to work won’t happen right away because they won’t be as appealing to hire.  They can be rejected out of the hiring process fairly early.  Not all unemployed people fit in this group, as you should know, and they shouldn’t be weeded out until later, if at all.

     It’s an advantage to the economy to keep the working people at work, but also to get the unemployed back at work.  Allowing the unemployed to be disadvantaged will slow down the recovery, why is why I suspect Christie is trying to encourage hiring them in New Jersey, and why I suppose President Obama would like them advantaged in the federal bill.

     It’s important to be able to think micro-economically, but if I’m going to cut down my aspirin intake, I’ve found I need to look at the macroeconomics as well.  Protect against heart attacks, yes, but also prevent ulcers.  As Houdini said over and over, “Always strike a happy Medium.”
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Catch-22, Revised   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors