US Politics Zero Hour - the Partisan Edition

[Swordfish]

I question the notion that refusing to take a job that is too far below the qualification of the one seeking a job is evidence of poor work ethics.

Yes, when unemployment runs out and you got bills to pay, you take whatever you can so you car is not repossessed and you are not being thrown out of your apartment/house. That's a given.

But a gap of unemployment, especially for a few months, is not a sign of poor work ethics. It might be more difficult for people new in the job market, but if you've had 3 to 5 years of solid employment history with no missteps, and due to the economy, you have been out of work for 8 months now, how is that a sign of poor work ethics? What we consider to be short- and long-term unemployment needs to be readjusted to current reality. Perhaps in the booming 90s, 6 months out of a job is a red flag, but in these past few years? Not so much. So I think this argument that is based on drawing conclusion about a person's work ethics in light of recent unemployment is dubious at best. Habitual and recurring gaps in employment? Yes, red flags. Solid employment for years and now a significant gap? Not so much.

That said, I do think the law is too heavy-handed for this situation. It'd have gone over better, I think, if it was a small tax incentive for business that do hire people who've been unemployed in the past 6 months, and if they keep these people for at least 6 months, they get a small tax write-off. Whatever tax incentive we give to the businesses will be off-set by the gain in federal and state income tax of the person being employed.

No, it wouldn't.

because SOMEONE would have been employed in that spot anyway. there's no 'extra' money coming in from such an incentive.

I was turned down for several sales clerks/cashiers jobs because I was so over qualified that they felt I would leave the first chance I got. They took one look at my employment history and KNEW i would be just using them until I got a "real" job.

how unfair.

We should pass a law prohibiting such discrimination.

[The Progressive]

For one, the dumbest employment lawyer that FLOW knows could successfully argue that recent relevant work experience is a BFOQ. An analoguous situation is where we say you can discriminate based on age when hiring airplane pilots, because the safety concerns make being below a certain age a BFOQ. Okay, so, you can discriminate based on employment status when hiring cashiers at McDonalds, because people with recent relevant work experience are more likely to be efficient cashiers. Great. Or even, say, people with recent work experience are generally shown to be more reliable employees with better retention rates, relevant or not.

Secondly, the bill does not address how these claims should be litigated under an adverse impact theory, which is where we hold that a practice is discriminatory not because of the intent of the employer, but because of the discriminatory effect.

First, the attorneys could make the BFOQ argument but whether or not it would be convincing across the board is entirely a different issue.

Second, the claims could be litigated under the disparate treatment theory alone if the unemployed becomes a protected basis.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If my choices are between making shitty money while I spend a large part of my day looking for a job/going to interviews for jobs that will pay me good money and making shitty money while working a shitty job that makes me feel like a worthless piece of shit and trying to squeeze in applications/interviews somewhere in there?

It's not really a choice at all.

And your attitude is exactly the point.

The reality is that someone who has been unemployed for some length of time can't make a full-time job out of looking for jobs and going on interviews. Once you've done that initial search, gotten resumes out, etc. it's just a matter of keeping up. And if you're lucky enough to get an interview, you make time for it.

What you're really saying here is that you don't want to have to work a full day just for a measly $80/week, and would prefer to simply wank at home and spend maybe an hour a day on a job search. I can see why an employer would prefer someone who has a different attitude towards working for the money they receive. The "I'm too good for that job" doesn't send a great message to employers who place value on work ethics, because almost any job has aspects to it that most think are beneath them.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

Hey FLoW, buddy, go work at some crappy minimum wage job for a while and tell me if the extra 20% is worth it.

You're right. A quick Google search shows that $390 is the maximum one can receive in Indiana.

If one is receiving the maximum amount or down to $100 less than the maximum amount, they're still making more than they'd make at a demeaning minimum wage job.

If my choices are between making shitty money while I spend a large part of my day looking for a job/going to interviews for jobs that will pay me good money and making shitty money while working a shitty job that makes me feel like a worthless piece of shit and trying to squeeze in applications/interviews somewhere in there?

It's not really a choice at all.

By definition your position is bigoted. "Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance."

Or you could just pick up a CSR position, and earn more then the maximum benefit by default.

As for your justification of the bigot comment, there is no prejudice or intolerance in having a differing method of evaluating work history.

Without that bill, I'd be forced to take a non-paying or low-paying position relevant to my area of practice over a paying job that is not relevant, like legal document review, just to keep my resume live while I was job-seeking.

If this were true, you wouldn't have to speak in the hypothetical. The protection does not yet exist, yet unemployed people still get hired all the time. All that I am objecting to is the idea that a better work history can not be used as a criteria for merit.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

First, the term discrimination is hyperbole.

Second, the 'accept unemployment or go hungry' line is as well. I don't think you will find the distinction raised in the thread, and businesses refusing to hire people because they accept unemployment rather then going hungry isn't currently an issue.

And you make the false assumption that there are jobs to be had by anyone wanting them. This is just not true.

1) People are limited by the area they live in.

2) Many employers are not interested in hiring people who are extremely over qualified

Every post you make, has a clear indication that "accepting UI is a morally inferior" decision. I was trying to point out to you, if you were in a postition of not finding this crap job, you would take the UI.

3) if you are working at this crap job, when are you looking for a better job and going on interviews?

[Swordfish]

Looking only at currently employed people, no matter the qualifications of the unemployed seems very unfair, but I have to agree with you that this is not a permenate fix, but a temporary one is bette than letting this unfair practice continue

Why? What is the net benefit to society here that justifies such legislation even if you could correct the situation, which by the way barely even exists?

Even assuming the legislation will make a difference, which seems highly unlikely.

Seriously.... You guys never cease to amaze me......

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is absurd at its face, and shows how long its been since you looked for a job, because it's not the game it was when you were a wee lad. Trust me - I was looking for a job in fall 2008.

Once you get your resume up to date, do your initial search, and get out those cover letters for a month of so to cover all the positions then open, there generally are not enough new positions each day to make it a full-time job. Work your day job, and if it takes you even 4 hours a day to keep up, then do that after work or on weekends. Or work part-time if you have to. Maybe there are some exceptions, for educated people who are engaging in nationwide searches for certain jobs. I could see that. But I very strongly suspect those are not the type of jobs that have the "you can't be unemployed" rule. For the vast majority, no. It is not a full-time job to look for a job.

And besides, if there really are those 40 million job openings, shouldn't someone be able to, working full time at it, find one in two weeks?

It all depends on what they're willing to accept. That is the key criteria.

[The Progressive]

We're pretty much seeing the conservatives rehashing the talkingpoints over unemployment benefit again ....................... unemployed people are either lazy, unmotivated, or moral/economic failure etc.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

And you make the false assumption that there are jobs to be had by anyone wanting them. This is just not true.

1) People are limited by the area they live in.

2) Many employers are not interested in hiring people who are extremely aver qualified

Every post you make, has a clear indication that "accepting UI is a morally inferior" decision. I was trying to point out to you, if you were in a postition of not finding this crap job, you would take the UI.

3) if you are working at this crap job, when are you looking for a better job and going on interviews?

Again, it was never claimed that people should go hungry rather then accept unemployment. The fact that some people choose to work rather then accept unemployment should however merit brownie points. If you want to argue the other point, perhaps it would be in your best interest to finding someone who is making that argument.

In addition, you and others are claiming that someone who already has a job doesn't have time to look for another. If this is the case, then the idea that the employed are stealing jobs from the unemployed is outlandish. Either working a job makes it nearly impossible to find a better one, as one simply lacks the time to do so, giving the unemployed a tremendous advantage when searching for employment, or employment isn't a great hindrance to the job searching. It can not be both.

[Tempra]

First, the attorneys could make the BFOQ argument but whether or not it would be convincing across the board is entirely a different issue.

Second, the claims could be litigated under the disparate treatment theory alone if the unemployed becomes a protected basis.

I think Raidne is way overstating the applicability of the BFOQ defense. Her McDonalds example is patently ridiculous and would not fly.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The fact that some people choose to work rather then accept unemployment should however merit brownie points.

Yes. And again, the reality is that most employers are not refusing to hire anyone who is unemployed, because many of them understand perfectly the dilemna some people may be in regarding accepting a job that is "beneath them". If you're an unemployed CFO, or chemical engineer, etc., nobody is going to view you more favorably because you took a job as a janitor.

In addition, you and others are claiming that someone who already has a job doesn't have time to look for another. If this is the case, then the idea that the employed are stealing jobs from the unemployed is outlandish. Either working a job makes it nearly impossible to find a better one, as one simply lacks the time to do so, giving the unemployed a tremendous advantage when searching for employment, or employment isn't a great hindrance to the job searching. It can not be both.

Ooh, that was well-played.

The underlying problem is that not enough new jobs are being created, so many employers can afford to (and are wise to) be extremely selective when hiring new employees, whatever specific criteria they are using. Trying to legislate around employers being more selective is akin to pushing a string. So sure, you could pass a law that would forbid employers from posting such ads. But the practical effect of such a law is negligible.

What troubles me about the mindset behind this is that it suggests the Adminstration believes that placing more rules and mandates on employers is the best way to get the economy going again. We're just going to legislate our way around this by trying to treat apparent symptoms rather than the underlying problem. And this particular example is just strange, and why I believe it is going to garner very little support even from among Democrats, some of the more "out there" progressives being the exception.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Again, it was never claimed that people should go hungry rather then accept unemployment. The fact that some people choose to work rather then accept unemployment should however merit brownie points. If you want to argue the other point, perhaps it would be in your best interest in finding someone who is making that argument.

In addition, you and others are claiming that someone who already has a job doesn't have time to look for another. If this is the case, then the idea that the employed are stealing jobs from the unemployed is outlandish. Either working a job makes it nearly impossible to find a better one, as one simply lacks the time to do so, giving the unemployed a tremendous advantage when searching for employment, or employment isn't a great hindrance to the job searching. It can not be both.

There is a HUGE difference between working a desk job and working a shit job. If you take the lower paying job, you need to work a lot more hours, you don't have access to the internet while at work, and you are a lot more exhausted when you get home.

I am not saying people are looking for and applying for work while on the clock at another job, but hour long lunches and breaks are good times for doing this. There is the time off issue too. At my professional job, we had PTO we could use pretty much whenever we wanted, Also, desk jobs are not usually as physically exhausting as shit jobs.

My husband has taken a shit job. He gets 20 minutes for lunch, barely enough time to eat, he gets home, showers, eats and often falls asleep on the floor. He looks for a better job on weekends when he doesn't have mandatory overtime, but arranging interviews is tough. He has to arrage at least a week in advance for time off. If he calls out for any reason, it is counted against him. Too many points and he is fired, so he has to weigh the risk of losing the shit job to getting the new job.

Yes, it is soooo easy to look for work while working a shit job.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think Raidne is way overstating the applicability of the BFOQ defense. Her McDonalds example is patently ridiculous and would not fly.

The test for a BFOQ is not that something be "reasonably related" to the employment, but rather reasonably necessary to the job. That's a fairly difficult standard to meet. In this case, I think it might be almost impossible because you'd have to proof that education, training courses, etc., all were insufficient to enable to the person to do the job, and that recent experience is necessary. There's a lot of case law out there drawing rough equivalencies between education/training/experience when it comes to job qualifications.

[Tempra]

The test for a BFOQ is not that something be "reasonably related" to the employment, but rather reasonably necessary to the job. That's a fairly difficult standard to meet. In this case, I think it might be almost impossible because you'd have to proof that education, training courses, etc., all were insufficient to enable to the person to do the job, and that recent experience is necessary. There's a lot of case law out there drawing rough equivalencies between education/training/experience when it comes to job qualifications.

Yep, the BFOQ defense mostly comes up in three types of cases: privacy (same sex janitors) health (age restrictions on pilots) and authenticity (hiring male actor for a male role). The BFOQ defense is rare outside of those scenarios.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

There is a HUGE difference between working a desk job and working a shit job. If you take the lower paying job, you need to work a lot more hours, you don't have access to the internet while at work, and you are a lot more exhausted when you get home.

I am not saying people are looking for and applying for work while on the clock at another job, but hour long lunches and breaks are good times for doing this. There is the time off issue too. At my professional job, we had PTO we could use pretty much whenever we wanted, Also, desk jobs are not usually as physically exhausting as shit jobs.

My husband has taken a shit job. He gets 20 minutes for lunch, barely enough time to eat, he gets home, showers, eats and often falls asleep on the floor. He looks for a better job on weekends when he doesn't have mandatory overtime, but arranging interviews is tough. He has to arrage at least a week in advance for time off. If he calls out for any reason, it is counted against him. Too many points and he is fired, so he has to weigh the risk of losing the shit job to getting the new job.

Yes, it is soooo easy to look for work while working a shit job.

Goodie gum drops, you offered up the obvious counter. Now here is the obvious rebuttal.

If people who are unemployed have a tremendous advantage finding decent employment over people that have 'shit jobs' why is it the people who have the tremendous advantage that require the the legislative protection, rather then those like your husband, who have to run themselves ragged and plan ahead or risk termination?

Portraying yourself as a valuable candidate to a decent employer while working a 'shit job' is extremely difficult. In your estimation it seems the difficulty is almost prohibitive. Seems to me that following that road shows merit. I am not in favor of passing legislative protection, but recognizing and respecting the required investment seems acceptable.

Calling that recognition a form of discrimination seems an insult to both folk like your husband, who make that struggle absent the advantages others enjoy, and the people who endure genuine discrimination.

[Guest Raidne]

FLOW - Okay true enough. I get the business necessity standards and BFOQ standards mixed up in my head sometimes (cut me a break, it's the end of the fiscal year and I'm swimming in veterans law). But at any rate, couldn't I just articulate a non-discriminatory basis (recent, relevant work experience) and show, if necessary, that it wasn't pretext?

After all, before it was superseded by statute, did it not used to be the case that one could discriminate based on pregnancy as doing so did not discriminate against women but against "pregnant persons"?

Furthermore, that disparate impact issue is a nightmare. And Lev, I have no idea why plaintiffs attorneys would not pursue that theory of entitlement out of the goodness of their own hearts.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

That's a fairly difficult standard to meet. In this case, I think it might be almost impossible because you'd have to proof that education, training courses, etc., all were insufficient to enable to the person to do the job, and that recent experience is necessary

Why does it have to be necessary? Why isn't recent work experiences simply a quality you can measure and factor into when you are selecting the best candidate?

As example, a person with an outstanding attendance record and glowing references that hit a bad bump in the road for god knows what reason and was without a job for a year can still outshine someone who barely managed to hang onto their cashier position and often called in sick, usually on his first scheduled shift of the week.

Just having a job doesn't automatically make you the best candidate, that would just be silly. An outstanding track record of employment and stability however can be a justifiable deciding factor.

Or wait, Is this an example of a 'this employer refuses to hire anyone who doesn't already have a job' lawsuit?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Goodie gum drops, you offered up the obvious counter. Now here is the obvious rebuttal.

If people who are unemployed have a tremendous advantage finding decent employment over people that have 'shit jobs' why is it the people who have the tremendous advantage that require the the legislative protection, rather then those like your husband, who have to run themselves ragged and plan ahead or risk termination?

Portraying yourself as a valuable candidate to a decent employer while working a 'shit job' is extremely difficult. In your estimation it seems the difficulty is almost prohibitive. Seems to me that following that road shows merit. I am not in favor of passing legislative protection, but recognizing and respecting the required investment seems acceptable.

Calling that recognition a form of discrimination seems an insult to both folk like your husband, who make that struggle absent the advantages others enjoy, and the people who endure genuine discrimination.

I have agreed that the law is not a great solution, but I have yet to see a better one.

I am just pointing out where your morally superiour arguments are wrong. You have continually stated how "bad" it is to accept UI rather than shit jobs. You haven't argued the case against the law. I have shot back in the same vein.

Unfortunately, your horse is so high, you can't hear or see a POV other than your own.

And where is exactly is this advantage if people who say they are unemployed don't even get their resumes looked at?

[Guest Raidne]

I think Raidne is way overstating the applicability of the BFOQ defense. Her McDonalds example is patently ridiculous and would not fly.

Well, look at this way. I took the time to actually find, read, and analyze the actual text of the bill.

Now maybe you can take a turn and come up with a better example, or explain why you think a BFOQ exception would or would not be a good thing in this bill.

Right now you appear the arguing that the bill as written would be just fine, because BFOQ is sufficiently limited in application. Is that the argument you're trying to make? Because I might fall over dead right now out of shock if you are actually in support of expanding antidiscrimination law.

[Tempra]

Well, look at this way. I took the time to actually find, read, and analyze the actual text of the bill.

Now maybe you can take a turn and come up with a better example, or explain why you think a BFOQ exception would or would not be a good thing in this bill.

Right now you appear the arguing that the bill as written would be just fine, because BFOQ is sufficiently limited in application. Is that the argument you're trying to make? Because I might fall over dead right now out of shock if you are actually in support of expanding antidiscrimination law.

I think the bill is a crock of shit for reasons better articulated by FLoW.

I think you may be right that a business could claim "recent relevant work experience" as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. Of course, it has to be legitimate. If a person lost their job last week, but had relevant work experience, then the LNR looks like pretext. I dont think you can have a legit BFOQ.

Sorry for being overly harsh. Bad day.