US Politics Zero Hour - the Partisan Edition

[Guest Raidne]

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

A better solution would be to provide some kind of incentive, tax or otherwise, for hiring people who are unemployed or underemployed. Of course, that costs money. OTOH, if unemployment discrimination was subjected to EEOC enforcement, it wouldn't be cheap either.

An even better idea is for people who are unemployed to quickly get involved in some kind of activity that is relevant to their field so they can fill that gap on their resume enough to get it through that initial screen, i.e. from mortgage broker to "mortgage counselor" or something if you can get yourself into some kind of volunteer work, either through an organization or on your own, or whatever. My resume says Legal Writing and Research Consultant from 2007-2009, because that is in fact what I did do (research and write memos and briefs for private attorneys on a contract basis), and the issues I wrote on and the courts I submitted them to generally dissaudes questions on how many hours a week I was doing that (not 40). No Big Law firm is going to even look at my resume when it says something like that, but a plaintiff's firm or the government would not necessarily reject it out of hand, particularly in this economy.

[Guest Raidne]

Just to get it out here, here's the text of the most relevant part of the bill

Declares it an unlawful practice for certain employers with at least 15 employees for each working day in each of at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year to: (1) refuse to consider or offer employment to an individual based on present or past unemployment regardless of the length of time such individual was unemployed; (2) publish an advertisement or announcement for any job with provisions indicating that such an unemployed status disqualifies an individual and that an employer will not consider an applicant based on such status; and (3) direct or request that an employment agency account for such status when screening or referring applicants.

Can I ask a question? How do you read (1)? Does it mean that you can't refuse to hire someone because they've been unemployed for 30 years, or does it mean that the length of time someone was unemployed can be considered?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Can I ask a question? How do you read (1)? Does it mean that you can't refuse to hire someone because they've been unemployed for 30 years, or does it mean that the length of time someone was unemployed can be considered?

I think it is borderline gibberish. Seriously -- that's some bad drafting.

A better solution would be to provide some kind of incentive, tax or otherwise, for hiring people who are unemployed or underemployed. Of course, that costs money.

I still don't understand why we should be incentivizing hiring someone who is unemployed or underemployed versus someone who is already employed. If the person who is being hired already has a job, doesn't that open a job up somewhere else for someone who is unemployed?

[awesome possum]

And your attitude is exactly the point.

My attitude?

I suppose this means if you found yourself out of work at the end of the day, you'd be at McDonald's or some shitty call center first thing in the morning to get something in the interim until you found something you're more qualified for?

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.

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to work a full day at a place where the work is so demeaning and the pay so crappy that it makes me want to go home and put a fucking gun in my mouth.

I watched my father be insanely miserable while working himself to death at a shitty job for shitty pay after the steel industry went belly up. I have no intention of doing the same.

Your posts on this subject, like many of your posts in this thread, shows just how out of touch you are with the reality millions of Americans live through every day. I'd tell you to try stepping out of your News Corp-sponsored reality, but I'm sure you're very happy in your ivory tower.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

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

</div>

The law isn't a solution AT ALL. The law does not create ANY new employment (well, I suppose a few more lawyers might get hired to prosecute under the reforms, but that's it). It STILL has not been shown that the alleged discrimination is taking place in sufficient numbers as to justify legislation (seriously, the only number that has been shown is 150 job postings, in the whole country, in a month. Statistically insignificant). It has not been shown that such legislation will actually have an effect on the problem. It has not been shown that the supposed benefits (which are remarkably narrow in scope) will outweigh the cost of compliance and opportunity costs.

The people promoting this law have managed to turn this into a "conservatives hate the poor!" debate, when it's more like "conservatives and a few liberals hate this law specifically"

It's bad legislation that addresses a mostly non-existent problem that isn't even a problem in the first place.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

An even better idea is for people who are unemployed to quickly get involved in some kind of activity that is relevant to their field so they can fill that gap on their resume enough to get it through that initial screen,

I think this is a great idea and should be something the unemployment councilors talk about at the mandatory classes people have to go to before they start collecting UI. It could have helped a lot of people (myself included, but I came out on the plus side, in the end---left a "career" I barely liked for one that I love. I might even make as much money as I was some day ;) )

[The Kassi (mark two)]

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?

You know, for someone who talks about others being on a high horse and not being able to see other people's points of view, you really don't seem to be arguing against my position at all so much as a generic construct with a specific set of negative qualities you can easily attribute to it.

Not once have I argued that accepting unemployment is immoral, or that it makes a person lazy or slobish or whatever. Nor have I even argued that accepting unemployment rather then taking a 'shit job' makes a person 'bad'. I have argued that accepting a 'shit job' as an alternative to to accepting unemployment is a choice that should be respected, as it is evidence of merit.

If you wish to automatically assume that by recognizing the merit of such a choice I automatically catagorize anyone who chooses differently is a lazy slug, that is on you, not me. There is such a thing as withholding judgment in the absence of data. A person who works a 'shit job' rather then going on unemployment provides evidence of several character traits by making that choice. As you said yourself it is a much harder path to walk. Someone who does not, doesn't. All other things being equal, the more attractive candidate is obvious.

Less attractive in comparison does not magically mean vile. Taking second place in a race doesn't make you a turtle. So please, if you wish to address my view, feel free. If you wish to address someone else's, leave me out of it.

As for my question to you, mostly you just evaded it. I would like to ask it again. Why is it not the people with the near universal disadvantage that warrant the protection? Under your argument, everyone who works a 'shit job' is at a tremendous disadvantage. There is no such parallel among the unemployed, as at worst only a tiny minority of inquiries are being rejected based on employment status absent any other form of consideration. Most of the companies talked about in the original article do hire many unemployed people, so the possible disadvantage, even at it's worst, is outweighed many times over by the actual advantage.

By what logic does that necessitate ignoring evidence of merit among those you yourself describe as disadvantaged in favor of those you yourself describe as advantaged?

This entire ball of silliness stinks like a poorly thought out feel good measure designed to address a non-issue that could end up hurting the chances of folks who have none of the advantages of the unemployed, or the office worker.

[Swordfish]

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

Solution for what? That is something no one seems to be able to articulate, other than 'OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!!'

You have a solution in need of a problem here....

What is the benefit you are trying to get to by prohibiting employers to screen based on something they see as a good screening mechanism for potential candidates? What is the harm being caused by this screening method? Where is the states vested interest in even considering something like this?

The analogy to racial/sex discrimination falls flat.

And again, it's not like this is some rampant problem.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to work a full day at a place where the work is so demeaning and the pay so crappy that it makes me want to go home and put a fucking gun in my mouth.

Hey, the law let's you do that. The law also (at least, the way it is now) permits an employer to consider that when evaluating the work ethic of applicants.

Your posts on this subject, like many of your posts in this thread, shows just how out of touch you are with the reality millions of Americans live through every day. I'd tell you to try stepping out of your News Corp-sponsored reality, but I'm sure you're very happy in your ivory tower.

Ah, horseshit. I freaking represent a bunch of people on the economic spectrum to whom you are referring, know their efforts to find alternative employment, etc.

As an example, I've got three guys I'm representing now in a race discrimination claim against their former employer. I never know what to think of these claims when I first get them because I only hear one side of the story. But these three guys are all black, unskilled, yet managed to find jobs within a month of this place screwing them over. They're making less than they were, and could have chosen not to find jobs so as to increase the potential damages in this case. But you know what? All three of those guys managed to find employment within a month, despite them being unskilled minorities in a depressed area. These are hard-working, honest guys I admire because they're not using this as an excuse. They just want to work, and I greatly admire them for the character they've shown with their work ethic.

Frankly, that's why I took their case, after they were turned down by some other people. Their attitude suggested to me that these were guys who work hard, and give an honest days work for an honest days pay. It made me believe that there was no valid reason for this company not to call them back into work. And as I've gotten into the case, that has been verified by customer comments on file, etc. So I see absolutely nothing wrong with employers who choose to give significant weight to hiring people who have demonstrated a willingness to hold down a crummy job.

I watched my father be insanely miserable while working himself to death at a shitty job for shitty pay after the steel industry went belly up. I have no intention of doing the same.

Then I'm sure you might understand why such employers might be unwilling to hire you.

[The Progressive]

Can I ask a question? How do you read (1)? Does it mean that you can't refuse to hire someone because they've been unemployed for 30 years, or does it mean that the length of time someone was unemployed can be considered?

I read it as you can't refuse to hire someone just because they've been unemployed in the past. To use your example, the employer can't just day we can't hire you now because 30 years ago you were unemployed for 3 years.

A better solution would be to provide some kind of incentive, tax or otherwise, for hiring people who are unemployed or underemployed.

The tax incentive for hiring the unemployed is also included in the bill. It's the first thing that rightwingers like Flow glossed over and then go on to complain that it should have been included in tandem with the proposed legislation. You know, something hilariously dumb like this, lol:

"this legislation should be viewed in tandem with the proposal to give tax credits for employers who hire the long-term unemployed."

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

I think that if you enjoy eating the horseshit stews that flow regurgitated, then I'll chalk it to your eccentric taste.

Sorry for being honest. Lol, but I did got a good laugh when Raidne mistaken you for someone who was in support of expanding anti-discrimination laws.

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.

Well they could, but it would not be persuasive, especially if their comparators are in the same protected class as them. In my work, I've seen charging parties' attorneys making all kinds of crazy arguments, lol.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Honestly, I think FLOW would say that refusing employment from specific sources is only a morally reprehensible position if you are collecting unemployment from the state.

No, I'm not saying it is morally reprehensible. I understand why people may not want to take a job that is well-beneath them in terms of education, etc. But I don't see why an employer shouldn't be able to prefer someone who chooses the more difficult course. And again, this really needs to be viewed in the very specific context of the job in question where this criteria is being applied. As Tormund has pointed out, this is comparatively rare.

Let's say it is a criteria being applied by a high-end company offering the highest wages in their industry. If such a company says "we're not taking anyone who is unemployed", I get it. The type of person they'd hire should have no trouble getting a job in a lot of other firms. Anyone unable to get a job somewhere else isn't going to have a chance of meeting their standards, because their practice is picking off the high-flyers from competitors. I don't see how that is unfair, or why we should seek to prohibit that. It certainly isn't operating as a barrier into the job market period. It's just operating as a barrier to this particular, high-end company, which according to Tormund's link is an extremely rare occurence.

Do we really need, or want, incredibly broad legislation to address this particular problem?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This entire ball of silliness stinks like a poorly thought out feel good measure designed to address a non-issue that could end up hurting the chances of folks who have none of the advantages of the unemployed, or the office worker.

That hadn't occured to me, but that's a really important point. Some people will take crummy jobs to build their resume, work experience, and make themselves more attractive to employers. "See, I've been at this place for 18 months. Pay is lower and hours tough, but I've never been late, always give a day's work for a day's pay, etc.." They take that job as a stepping stone to something better.

But this new law, both by barring preferences for the already employed AND by offering a special tax incentive for hiring the unemployed, actually discourages the hiring of those people who take entry level jobs trying to get ahead. Basically, it fucks over guys like my clients by steering employers to hire the unemployed in preference to them. That just sucks.

[The Progressive]

Tormund link to something? I must have missed it.

[The Progressive]

This entire ball of silliness stinks like a poorly thought out feel good measure designed to address a non-issue that could end up hurting the chances of folks who have none of the advantages of the unemployed, or the office worker.

I think you're really missing the point here on purpose, which isn't surprising. This isn't a zero-sum game where the unemployed are favored over the employed in the application to the same job. That's just horseshit rightwing talkingpoint. The point here is that the employer should not outright reject/refuse to consider someone's relevant qualification to the job simply on the basis that the applicant has been unemployed for sometimes.

[The Progressive]

</div>

The law isn't a solution AT ALL. The law does not create ANY new employment

Listen tormund,

This particular section of the law was not meant to create employment but to address discrimination. Another section of the law, the portion regarding tax credit for hiring the unemployed would try to address that.

(seriously, the only number that has been shown is 150 job postings, in the whole country, in a month. Statistically insignificant).

It's a problem that's people are reporting. Strangely enough for someone who always make a point about law enforcement problems through anecdotal evidences, you seem to find that disagreeable here. But the numbers of complaints isn't the end-all of any problems that needed rectification. Look at the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ........... there's barely any complaint at all about genetic discrimination but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.

It has not been shown that such legislation will actually have an effect on the problem.

It's pretty bizzare of you to ask for the effective of the legislation at resolving the issue before the legislation is passed. Let me ask you this then: given that Title VII and the ADA prohibited discrimination based on race/national origin/sex and disability, but we're still getting getting tens of thousands of complaints of discrimination based on those protected classes each year .............. does that mean those laws are ineffective and should be repealed?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Unrelated topic, but I thought this was an interesting article about the demographics of the U.S. military:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years."

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that "low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years."

Not sure why any of that matters, but I thought it interesting.

[awesome possum]

Then I'm sure you might understand why such employers might be unwilling to hire you.

You're right. My hypothetical unwillingness to go out and apply for and work at a hypothetical minimum wage job immediately after losing a hypothetical previous one is precisely why the hypothetical good job that pays good money I also hypothetically applied for immediately after losing the hypothetical previous one will hypothetically tell me to fuck off.

You've helped me see the hypothetical light.

[Jon Sprunk]

I understand why people may not want to take a job that is well-beneath them in terms of education, etc. But I don't see why an employer shouldn't be able to prefer someone who chooses the more difficult course. And again, this really needs to be viewed in the very specific context of the job in question where this criteria is being applied. As Tormund has pointed out, this is comparatively rare.

Do we really need, or want, incredibly broad legislation to address this particular problem?

Apparently, Gov. Chris Christie disagrees with you.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The point here is that the employer should not outright reject/refuse to consider someone's relevant qualification to the job simply on the basis that the applicant has been unemployed for sometimes.

Why not? It has simply not been demonstrated that there do not exist good-faith reasons for such criteria. It has certainly NOT been shown that such things need to fall under the purview of law.

This particular section of the law was not meant to create employment but to address discrimination.

It only addresses discrimination (which really has still not been shown to be any kind of serious, much less institutional and historical problem such as that involving race or gender), of a very recent type, and based upon mutable circumstances. It is reactionary, poorly thought out, and unnecessary. It is simply BAD legislation, and any time you give bad ideas the power of law, it end in catastrophe.

It's a problem that's people are reporting. Strangely enough for someone who always make a point about law enforcement problems through anecdotal evidences, you seem to find that disagreeable here. But the numbers of complaints isn't the end-all of any problems that needed rectification. . Look at the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ........... there's barely any complaint at all about genetic discrimination but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.

I back my cop shit up

Aside from that, you are talking about enacting legislation for 310 million people. I figure at least showing that a problem exists before banning it isn't too much to ask.

It's pretty bizzare of you to ask for the effective of the legislation at resolving the issue before the legislation is passed. Let me ask you this then: given that Title VII and the ADA prohibited discrimination based on race/national origin/sex and disability, but we're still getting getting tens of thousands of complaints of discrimination based on those protected classes each year .............. does that mean those laws are ineffective and should be repealed?

Why is it bizarre? Shouldn't such a thing be asked of ALL legislation? If I wanted to ban say...hormones given to cattle and chicken, shouldn't I at least investigate whether the science actually backs me up that they are harmful? Shouldn't I investigate whether doing so will price meat and milk out of the reach of the poor? I think it's bizarre that you support legislation without any idea of what the negative consequences will be, just because the idea sounds good.

Regarding Title VII and the ADA (which you know my little libertarian heart is not a big fan of), at least those had the weight of decades or even centuries of evidence, of overt discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact based on immutable (except in the case of religion) circumstances. Adding being unemployed without such evidence is (again) bad legislation, and really a lousy precedent to set (shall we next make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of which college you went to, after all why should someone who could only afford community college not have the same opportunity as someone who went to Yale?)

[Shryke]

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.

Have you actually looked for a job recently? How about talked to people who help people find jobs for a living?

Cause I've done both. One of the biggest pieces of advice you'll see from any of those groups is "looking for work is a full-time job". It takes quite a bit of time. What it especially takes is flexible time. And as Lany points out so elequently a few pages back, the type of shit work you people are suggesting getting is exactly the type of work that's antithetical to the job-searching process. Lots of hours (to make it worth it), tiring and inflexible.

If your suggestion for finding work is throwing resumes out there and just updating it occasionally, I fear for you if you are ever unemployed. That shit will get you nothing alot of the time.

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

Actually the key criteria is are they able to accept. Are they qualified, are they in the area, is the job compatible.

And for the government, the real key question is do you even want them to accept? Cause often the answer is "No, get a better job".