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.
The stupidity and far reaching non sense of the left continues.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with taking into account if someone is unemployed or how long they've been unemployed. Secondly, how the hell can you prove it that's the reason and how does an employer prove its for something else?!?!
If they don't want to hire you, for whatever reason, deal with it. They could just have an off putting feeling about someone and that should be allowed as a valid enough reason.
More ruled, more regs. They never stop coming. The far reaching left just won't stop
Well employers then just keep their mouths shut and hire who they want.
They are already constrained to what they can say when called as a reference..can't say "I fired him because he never shows up for work". All they can do now is verify employment dates.
So now they will be constrained in what they tell you if you call about that opening/application you submitted.
"Sorry, the position is filled".
If you have been out of work more than six months, you were probably the bottom of the barrel anyway. Good employees with desirable skillsets never have trouble finding work.
The stupidity and far reaching non sense of the left continues.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with taking into account if someone is unemployed or how long they've been unemployed. Secondly, how the hell can you prove it that's the reason and how does an employer prove its for something else?!?!
If they don't want to hire you, for whatever reason, deal with it. They could just have an off putting feeling about someone and that should be allowed as a valid enough reason.
More ruled, more regs. They never stop coming. The far reaching left just won't stop
There is nothing stupid about it. This is the 2nd thread that I've read of yours today and it seems that anything that you disagree with is labeled "stupid" -- as if there is no other side to the argument.
There are many companies that have a policy that they won't hire people who are presently unemployed. That policy undermines the public policy to lower unemployment, since that means that if every employer had this policy, the unemployed would be unemployed in perpetuity and them become a burden on public support.
This law establishes the public policy that employers shall not discriminating on the basis of employment status in their hiring decisions. How is this enforced? How is that law that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex and race enforced?
I'm very happy where I'm employed now, but I've noticed that many jobs in my research field are also in NYC. Fortunately, they may be moving soon due to this legislation and Research Triangle Park would be happy to take them in.
The stupidity and far reaching non sense of the left continues.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with taking into account if someone is unemployed or how long they've been unemployed. Secondly, how the hell can you prove it that's the reason and how does an employer prove its for something else?!?!
If they don't want to hire you, for whatever reason, deal with it. They could just have an off putting feeling about someone and that should be allowed as a valid enough reason.
More ruled, more regs. They never stop coming. The far reaching left just won't stop
So you must think that lawyers work for free? People who are unemployed would need to have a lot of money in order to sue someone. How many unemployed people do you think would have enough spare cash to hire a lawyer and start a lawsuit? Just because you sue someone, doesn't mean you're going to win.
I will say this--refusing to hire people with a gap in employment is a very woman unfriendly policy, because so many women take breaks in employment because of pregnancy and child care. We want families to actually raise their kids so that they perform in school and stay out of trouble, but then we punish them professionally when they do it.
I don't know many stay at home moms who expect to go back to the top of their field after a few years at home, but having trouble even finding entry level work when you're well educated and experienced is pretty discouraging. I've hired women who've been out of the workforce for a number of years and I've been thrilled with the results--in addition to the years of experience and education that they've brought from their pre-kid days, they have great juggling skills and they tend to be super dedicated--they might have to deal with a sick child from time to time, or take off early for a school event or soccer practice, but I don't know that I've ever had one call in sick on a Friday or a Monday because they wanted a day off to go to the lake, or they had a little too much "weekend." They bend over backwards to make the time up and then some when they ARE gone. I'm a working mom and I understand the need for employers who have "mom friendly" hiring and employment policies. Those same policies have been great for my business.
Last edited by mb1547; 03-14-2013 at 08:43 AM..
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.
