Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a feel good bill and nothing more. However, it will prevent employers from adding things like "Unemployed need not apply" to their job announcements.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Great.
Making it illegal to not hire people who don't want to work is helpful in what way?
To characterize the unemployed as people who don't want to work is a load of crap. Do you live under a rock? I would've thought everyone knows at least one person who's been 'downsized' after a long, successful run at a job.
It'll create jobs! The Booboo administration will create a new federal agency to prosecute business owners accused of discriminating against the long-terem unemployed. Should employ thousands...and destroy thousands more businesses. This is right along the path of this administration.
I came across this article from Michigan this morning. It's about a bill banning employers from discriminating against those who are already unemployed. Apparently New Jersey has a similar bill, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
It's a feel good bill and nothing more. However, it will prevent employers from adding things like "Unemployed need not apply" to their job announcements.
Agreed. It will be very difficult to determine that a particular company is using current employment as a criteria for advancing in the hiring process. However, I have seen application websites that kick you out immediately if you click "Unemployed" as your current situation. That, of course, would stop. They'd just kick your app out a little later.
Still, I find it interesting that companies would not want to hire someone who is not currently already employed. Seems rather counterintuitive to me: an unemployed person is more eager for work, would likely be easier to negotiate with on wages, would likely have a longer "honeymoon" period before they got cranky, etc. And with such a large number of people who are out of work, companies with this policy are unnecessarily limiting their pool of applicants.
Agreed. It will be very difficult to determine that a particular company is using current employment as a criteria for advancing in the hiring process. However, I have seen application websites that kick you out immediately if you click "Unemployed" as your current situation. That, of course, would stop. They'd just kick your app out a little later.
Still, I find it interesting that companies would not want to hire someone who is not currently already employed. Seems rather counterintuitive to me: an unemployed person is more eager for work, would likely be easier to negotiate with on wages, would likely have a longer "honeymoon" period before they got cranky, etc. And with such a large number of people who are out of work, companies with this policy are unnecessarily limiting their pool of applicants.
It's a Eugenics plan... Unemployed?... Go away and die...
Yet Another Kum-By-Ya attempt to push us over to Socialism. While there at it, lets give the unemployed another 99 weeks.
The unemployed would not be so if they had any common sense to realize their lives were over when their bloated overpaid salaries were lost. It was time to reset the life clock and start over when they lost their job 2 years or 3 years ago.
In the hey day when everyone was working, employers found themselves in positions were they had to raise salaries to keep the steady eddy's in the office. When things crashed steady eddy did not want to sacrifice and give back any money, as an employer we had no choice but to send eddy packing.
Now employers have choice and they are choosing younger and cheaper employees vs. steady eddy who still thinks he deserves 75, 80k or more.
If I can hire at 35k and train up, that's what I am doing.
The unemployed will remain so until such time they realize that the good ole days are gone.
Sorry, that is the way it is and the way it has always been.
You can't make me hire someone I don't want to hire. Their interpretation of discrimination is wrong. We hire for the good of the company, not based on status, creed, color, sex or sexual orientation.
All Unemployed (Downsizers) Ask yourself this, "Would you like frys with that burger?"
This is where you need to start climbing that ladder again. Get moving, your not getting any younger.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Great.
Making it illegal to not hire people who don't want to work is helpful in what way?
ASSuming an unemployed person doesn't want to work is sensible in what way?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
