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.
Should the Unemployed be able to file a lawsuit against employers who refuse to hire the unemployed ?
I realize there is no ( law) against it but honestly what are your opinions regarding this current practice of employers refusing to hire the unemployed simply because they ARE unemployed ?
From The People Place Job Recruiting : "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."
Sony Erricson : Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL."
Restaurant in Edgewater, NJ " Must be currently employed "
.
A company's choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.
Last edited by WannaliveinGreenville; 02-21-2011 at 01:01 PM..
Should the Unemployed be able to file a lawsuit employers who refuse to hire the unemployed ?
I realize there is no ( law) against it but honestly what are your opinions regarding this current practice of employers refusing to hire the unemployed simply because they ARE unemployed ?
From The People Place Job Recruiting : "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."
Sony Erricson : Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL."
Restaurant in Edgewater, NJ " Must be currently employed "
.
A company's choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.
so you think its better judges want to decide who company hires?
"Excluding unemployed workers from employment opportunities is unfair to workers, bad for the economy, and potentially violates basic civil rights protections because of the disparate impact on older workers, workers of color, women and others," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, in her testimony.
Even if the companies pull the language from their ads, many still discriminate against the unemployed,. The long-term unemployed are perhaps in the worst shape; employers worry that their skills are outdated and pass over them for positions, which means they are unemployed for even longer and have more difficulty finding work.
“The use of an individual’s current or recent unemployment status as a hiring selection device is a troubling development in the labor market,†said Fatima Goss Graves, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center.
latimes.com
"Excluding unemployed workers from employment opportunities"
I suspect these companies are trying to glean the creme of the crop who actually wants to work for them from a position of choice rather than from one of desperation.
I think it's really crappy of employers to refuse to even consider somebody who's not currently employed. However, it makes no sense to allow somebody a cause of action in court for that reason. The unemployed are not a protected class, and are generally eligible for unemployment insurance if they were not fired for cause or quit on their own (may vary slightly from state to state).
No. You have no legal basis, no standing and haven't suffered any damages.
In other words, not being able to work because a company refuses to hire causes no damages. What about foreclosure, homelessness, bankruptcy?? A person has to have a job or the bills just don't get paid. In the majority of states unemployment doesn't pay near enough to make ends meet. For example, AZ pays $240 a week, FL pays $250 a week. Some people are lucky if they even make $200 a week in unemployment.
What about the costs of unemployment to the tax payer??? Most taxpayers gripe at the unemployed and tell them to go to work, but how? How are they to do that if companies won't hire them??? What are the unemployed supposed to do? Just go out on the streets and die already?? These people need JOBS and companies refusing to hire them damages the person and this country.
I suspect these companies are trying to glean the creme of the crop who actually wants to work for them from a position of choice rather than from one of desperation.
How do we know that everyone that is employed really is the creme of the crop? I have seen some terribly lazy employed people out there. I went into an appointment a while back and saw a lady playing Solitaire when she was supposed to be helping customers. I never did that on my job and I am the one who can't find work.
I saw another woman talking on her cell phone, when she was supposed to be waiting tables.
One teacher I know lets her kids run wild because she is too lazy to get off her butt and help the kids. I worked from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. helping my students. She leaves everyday at 3:30 p.m. I am the one out of work.
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.