400 replies to this topic

[Memory Lane]

Continue the discussion here, since the old threat has hit 21 pages and is going to face the Lock.

I've whined about re-districting in my home state (Utah) before, but the legislature is getting close to a plan. It's about as bad as I expected it would be, complete with giant "pizza slice" districts designed to separate Salt Lake County into small portions connected with giant rural, More-Conservative-Than-God areas that will now outnumber them. The state-level districting is just as bad, with absurdities like running a district line right through the middle of the Utah State University Campus and so forth.

I envy you people who actually live in a state with a reasonably competitive state government.

Edited by The Wisest Bass, 26 September 2011 - 04:32 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Wisest Bass, on 26 September 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

I envy you people who actually live in a state with a reasonably competitive state government.

Hold your envy.  My state is considered a bellweather/swing state, but no matter who we elect to state government, they tend to be horrible.  Although our last Democrat and current Republican both have feigned competence for longer than most of their predecessors.

[The Progressive]

More on unemployment discrimination:

http://www.huffingto...w_n_917641.html

"Some staffing firms, when questioned by reporters, are upfront about their intention to recruit only people who currently have jobs. Martin Recruiting Partners, a restaurant staffing agency based in Georgia, ran ads which stated candidates "Must be currently working & ready to move for the right reason."
George Seed, the company's vice president of operations, defended the policy.
"When my clients hire me, they want people who are motivated to go to work for the right reasons," Seed said. "And if someone is currently employed in a good position, then their motivation to move to a different company would be that the company offers better benefits or offers more growth for advancement, or whatever. They're not people who have to have a job, they're people who want to move for the right reasons."
Seed, along with representatives from four other staffing agencies listed in the NELP report, said many of his clients will only consider job applicants who are presently employed and claimed they had requested the language."


http://unemployedwor...011.pdf?nocdn=1

"NELP conducted its review over the four-week period that commenced on March 9, 2011 and ended
on April 5, 2011. A NELP researcher reviewed job postings during that period that appeared on four
of the nation’s most prominent online job listing websites: CareerBuilder.com, Indeed.com,
Monster.com, and Craigslist.com. The online research sought information on both employers and
staffing firms that were specifically identified by name (often, job listings are posted anonymously),
while also seeking a diverse sample from across the United States.
NELP’s snapshot of jobs postings identified more than 150 ads that included exclusions based on
current employment status, including 125 ads that identified specific companies by name. The
overwhelming majority of the offending ads required that applicants “must be currently employed.”
CareerBuilder.com and Indeed.com accounted for more than 75 percent of the exclusionary ads NELP
identified. Staffing firms were prominently represented among those companies identified with the
practice of excluding unemployed job seekers, accounting for about half of all the postings."

I predict much hilarity as the libertarians/republicans get their panties all wet trying to defend this, lol.

Edited by Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt, 26 September 2011 - 05:39 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 26 September 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

You know, you could have just said "No Tormund, the evidence does not exist, but here is a video by someone else who thinks it might exist".

Your "article" citied no sources, provided no numbers, and provided no rational basis for legislation.  It quoted 1 person who was unemployed but did not cite any examples of being discriminated against on that basis.  1 recruiter who claimed "some companies" wanted employed people, and one congresscritter sponsoring a bill.

Weak stuff dude.  Come back when you can actually answer the questions.

I don't even understand the underlying logic.  If you're hiring someone who is already employed, then you're creating a vacancy somewhere else that needs to be filled.  What difference does it make whether the vacancy is at this job or the other?  Either this is a net new job being added to the economy, in which case someone unemployed is being hired somewhere to fill that slot, or it's not a net new job, and the hiring of this person means someone else is going to lose their job and become unemployed  And I don't see a reason why we should favor someone who has been off work for awhile over someone about to lose his/her job.

And frankly, there are perfectly valid reasons why employers would prefer to hire someone who is already working over someone who isn't, and I don't see why we should discourage that given that it is a zero-sum game anyway.
Is it just supposed to be a bill to help create jobs for lawyers?

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 26 September 2011 - 04:55 PM.

[MinDonner]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 26 September 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

And I don't see a reason why we should favor someone who has been off work for awhile over someone about to lose his/her job.

*raises hand*

Could we stop framing "not discriminating against" as "giving speshul advantages to"? Thanks.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

When my clients hire me, they want people who are motivated to go to work for the right reasons," Seed said. "And if someone is currently employed in a good position, then their motivation to move to a different company would be that the company offers better benefits or offers more growth for advancement, or whatever. They're not people who have to have a job, they're people who want to move for the right reasons.&

And this is, to your mind, a bad-faith and actionable thought-crime?

Quote

150 ads that included exclusions based on current employment status

Wow!  150!  In the whole internet!  Clearly this plague must be stopped.

I mean seriously.  You are wanting to equate (legislatively) being unemployed with being black, or gay, or Jewish.   I simply don't see the evidence (nor have you provided it) that
1) Such discrimination occurs in sufficient quantities as to warrant legislation.
2) Such discrimination can be shown to be based on bad-faith reasoning
3) That legislation would be an effective remedy
4) That the benefit of legislation would outweigh the cost (to say nothing of the infringement on freedom)

This is also ignoring the fact that the "prohibited basis" classes that exist in legislation were put there due to centuries if not millennia of oppression and this is something that was invented in the last couple years (if at all).

Edited by Tormund Midgetsbane, 26 September 2011 - 05:01 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

MinDonner, on 26 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

*raises hand*

Could we stop framing "not discriminating against" as "giving speshul advantages to"? Thanks.

First, no. At a basic level, it permits favoritism towards the unemployed but does not permit favoritism towards the employed. It is giving one group protected status but not the other, and unlike race, etc., there is no "reverse discrimination" prohibition.


Second, in this context, the policy itself evidences favor. Why should it matter if a job goes to someone who is unemployed versus someone who isn't? What is wrong with an employer favoring someone who already has a job? Because as I said, it is a zero-sum game, so if one person gets it, the other does not. Why are we perfectly fine with an outcome when an employed person is turned down, but not fine if an unemployed person is turned down?

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 26 September 2011 - 05:06 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

MinDonner, on 26 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

*raises hand*

Could we stop framing "not discriminating against" as "giving speshul advantages to"? Thanks.

First, no.  At a basic level, it permits favoritism towards the unemployed but does not permit favoritism towards the employed.  It is giving one group protected status but not the other, and unlike race, etc., there is no "reverse discrimination" prohibition.

Second, in this context, the policy itself evidences favor.  Why should it matter if a job goes to someone who is unemployed versus someone who isn't?  What is wrong with an employer favoring someone who already has a job?  Because as I said, it is a zero-sum game, so if one person gets it, the other does not.  Why are we perfectly fine with an outcome when an employed person is turned down?

[The Progressive]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 26 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

And this is, to your mind, a bad-faith and actionable thought-crime?


Wow!  150!  In the whole internet!  Clearly this plague must be stopped.

I mean seriously.  You are wanting to equate (legislatively) being unemployed with being black, or gay, or Jewish.   I simply don't see the evidence (nor have you provided it) that
1) Such discrimination occurs in sufficient quantities as to warrant legislation.
2) Such discrimination can be shown to be based on bad-faith reasoning
3) That legislation would be an effective remedy
4) That the benefit of legislation would outweigh the cost (to say nothing of the infringement on freedom)

This is also ignoring the fact that the "prohibited basis" classes that exist in legislation were put there due to centuries if not millennia of oppression and this is something that was invented in the last couple years (if at all).

Because it's a stupid and lazy argument.  I mean the dumbass was arguing that he rather hired people currently employed over those who are not because of "motivation"!  

1.  It existed, the data was gathered from a 4-weeks period from just 4 websites.
2.  See above about the fucktard defense regarding "motivation".
3.  Yes
4.  What cost?

[The Progressive]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 26 September 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

First, no.  At a basic level, it permits favoritism towards the unemployed but does not permit favoritism towards the employed.  It is giving one group protected status but not the other, and unlike race, etc., there is no "reverse discrimination" prohibition.

Second, in this context, the policy itself evidences favor.  Why should it matter if a job goes to someone who is unemployed versus someone who isn't?  What is wrong with an employer favoring someone who already has a job?  Because as I said, it is a zero-sum game, so if one person gets it, the other does not.  Why are we perfectly fine with an outcome when an employed person is turned down?

That's really some horseshit because the legislation simply prohibit the outright discrimination of someone's application due to his/her unemployment status.  It does not favor the unemployed over the employed.  Of course relevant experience/education should be still utilized for comparative purpose between applicants.

Edited by Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt, 26 September 2011 - 05:16 PM.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Just a reminder that circumventing the no-flames rules by substituting a generic place holder to which another boarder clearly belongs to in the context of the discussion is not going to work.

[/mod hat]

[The Kassi (mark two)]

How is favoring someone who is currently employed over someone who isn't discrimination?

Discrimination is when you favor a particular group over another rather then simply assessing merit. If you have a job, at least in most cases, you have concrete evidence that an employer already considers you valuable enough to keep around. You are currently a profitable asset. If you lack a job, then you do not have that evidence. You are not, at this very moment, a profitable asset. As a measure of merit one can argue that this is inefficient, but it is not discrimination any more then preferring to hire someone with experience or education is discrimination against those just entering the market or those who didn't bother with higher learning.

Discrimination is abhorrent. At best practices like these are counter productive, and even that would be a difficult case to make.

Edited by The Kassi (mark two), 26 September 2011 - 06:10 PM.

[awesome possum]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 26 September 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

First, no.  At a basic level, it permits favoritism towards the unemployed but does not permit favoritism towards the employed.  It is giving one group protected status but not the other, and unlike race, etc., there is no "reverse discrimination" prohibition.

Come on man, really?  I mean, really?  You're arguing against it because it doesn't favor the employed?

Quote

Why are we perfectly fine with an outcome when an employed person is turned down?

I don't know, maybe because they're already employed!  And they're already being favored.

Let's say your doomsday scenario comes true and every job that goes to an unemployed worker means an employed worker loses a job; so what?  Chances are that unemployed worker is going off of extended unemployment benefits, which the government pays 100% of last I checked.  The new unemployed will be on the state and federal funds, which are not 100% paid for by the government.  That's saving money, right?

Edited by awesome possum, 26 September 2011 - 06:16 PM.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

1. It existed, the data was gathered from a 4-weeks period from just 4 websites.

</div>

In the 4 largest websites in the world for such activities over an entire month they were able to fine 150 instances of it.  This is not indicative of a widespread or pervasive problem.  Evidence of a problem requiring legislation (if indeed, it is a problem at all) has not been shown.</div>

Quote

2. See above about the fucktard defense regarding "motivation".

I'm confused.  You consider &quot;I like the motivations of people seeking job transfers over those seeking employment from scratch to be an actual criminal human rights violation.  That is the actual position you are taking?  And you have evidence to back this up

Quote

3. Yes

Yes there is evidence that legislation would solve this problem?  By all means share with the class.  Do show examples of similar legislation in your work.

Quote

4. What cost?

The cost of thousands of lawsuits filed by people who did not receive a job.  If every job has 50 unemployed applicants that is 50 potential lawsuits that every employer is facing every time they make a hiring decision.  With 14 million unemployed people the costs boggle the mind.  How about opportunity costs in which the best applicant is not hired due to fear of lawsuits.  How about the cost of administering yet another protected class in the government.

Quote

Discrimination is when you favor a particular group over another rather then simply assessing merit.

Why is "Being so valuable to their prior company that they were retained for employment even as others were laid off" not a matter of merit?

Edited by Tormund Midgetsbane, 26 September 2011 - 06:32 PM.

[MinDonner]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 26 September 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Why is "Being so valuable to their prior company that they were retained for employment even as others were laid off" not a matter of merit?

Why is "having the good fortune to work for a company that hasn't gone bust yet" a matter of merit?

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

Why is "having the good fortune to work for a company that hasn't gone bust yet" a matter of merit?

How can a legal distinction be made between the two?

[The Progressive]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 26 September 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

</div>

In the 4 largest websites in the world for such activities over an entire month they were able to fine 150 instances of it.  This is not indicative of a widespread or pervasive problem.  Evidence of a problem requiring legislation (if indeed, it is a problem at all) has not been shown.</div>



I'm confused.  You consider &quot;I like the motivations of people seeking job transfers over those seeking employment from scratch to be an actual criminal human rights violation.  That is the actual position you are taking?  And you have evidence to back this up



Yes there is evidence that legislation would solve this problem?  By all means share with the class.  Do show examples of similar legislation in your work.



The cost of thousands of lawsuits filed by people who did not receive a job.  If every job has 50 unemployed applicants that is 50 potential lawsuits that every employer is facing every time they make a hiring decision.  With 14 million unemployed people the costs boggle the mind.  How about opportunity costs in which the best applicant is not hired due to fear of lawsuits.  How about the cost of administering yet another protected class in the government.



Why is "Being so valuable to their prior company that they were retained for employment even as others were laid off" not a matter of merit?

1.  A snapshot that shows such discriminatory practice across job sectors are evidence enough.  You don't like it, fund a different study and try to disprove it.  And there are plenty of anecdotal stories about it, but somehow you, the champion of linking to anecdotal stories about police abuse in your crusade against law enforcement, is somehow find anecdotal evidences distasteful.  What a load of bullshit.

2.  If you could somehow quantify "motivation" as an objective and measurable quality, then I'm all for using it as a rationale for preventing the unemployed from being considered for a job.

3.  Legislation would prevent such ads specifying "currently employed applicant only" from being posted.

4.  That's the same bullshits fear-mongering over the potential lawsuits that would created when the ADA or Title VII or ADEA.   Show me the lawsuits from those laws that has crippled the court system.

[The Progressive]

Quote

How about opportunity costs in which the best applicant is not hired due to fear of lawsuits.

How about the opportunity costs in which the best applicant wasn't hired because he/she was unemployed for 6 months and therefore his/her application wasn't even accepted or considered for interview?

[Commodore]

The Kassi (mark two), on 26 September 2011 - 06:08 PM, said:

How is favoring someone who is currently employed over someone who isn't discrimination?

It's discrimination based on employment status.

None of mine or anyone else's business what hiring criteria an employer has.

Quote

How about the opportunity costs in which the best applicant wasn't hired because he/she was unemployed for 6 months and therefore his/her application wasn't even accepted or considered for interview?

You should start a company that ignores employment status when hiring.

Edited by Commodore, 26 September 2011 - 07:22 PM.

[Shryke]

I can't believe this is a point of contention. /facepalm

MinDonner, on 26 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

*raises hand*

Could we stop framing "not discriminating against" as "giving speshul advantages to"? Thanks.

Are you really surprised? Trying this framing is so old-school, it's collecting SS. See: any debate on Affirmative Action ever


Edit: Oh look, just in time:

Commodore, on 26 September 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's discrimination based on employment status.

Reverse Discrimination!!!!

Quote

None of mine or anyone else's business what hiring criteria an employer has.

Except not. What with all the laws about it and everything.

Edited by Shryke, 26 September 2011 - 07:28 PM.