American Jobs Act Features Sop to Unemployees

Walter Olson of Overlawyered.com reveals another way President Obama’s American Jobs Act would complicate the process of hiring a person. The bill [pdf] will make it illegal to consider an applicant’s employment status when making a hiring decision. It would also ban advertising that makes reference to current employment status and put other restrictions on employment agencies. Here it is in glorious legalese: 

SEC. 374. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) Employers- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to--

(1) publish in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for an employee for any job that includes-

(A) any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for any employment opportunity; or

(B) any provision stating or indicating that an employer will not consider or hire an individual for any employment opportunity based on that individual's status as unemployed; or

(2) fail or refuse to consider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed;

(3) direct or request that an employment agency take an individual's status as unemployed into account to disqualify an applicant for consideration, screening, or referral for employment as an employee.

(b) Employment Agencies- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to—

(1) publish, in print or on the Internet or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for any vacancy in a job, as an employee, that includes--

(A) any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for any employment opportunity; or

(B) any provision stating or indicating that the employment agency or an employer will not consider or hire an individual for any employment opportunity based on that individual's status as unemployed.

(2) screen, fail or refuse to consider, or fail or refuse to refer an individual for employment as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed;

(3) limit, segregate, or classify any individual in any manner that would limit or tend to limit the individual’s access to information about jobs, or consideration, screening, or referral for jobs, as employees, solely because of an individual’s status as unemployed.

At the end of August and the beginning of this month, I wrote about the so-called 99ers (non-workers who have exhausted their extended unemployment benefits), about the damage I believe the most famous 99ers are doing to their own hiring prospects and about Obama’s verbal support for legislation like the requirements above.

Somewhere in there I noted that I think discriminating against a person who is not currently working is poor hiring practice – but then again I’ve never had to cull a stack of 500 résumés. 

Creating a new protected class, however, is a poor precedent, and the advertising restrictions raise First Amendment issues. Adding new legal hoops for employers also strikes me as a strange way to get people hiring again. In any event, the 99ers have already been displaced in the public imagination by The 99 Percent

So I repeat my earlier exhortation to the 99ers: Do any work you can, even if it’s day labor, rather than building a personal brand as an unemployee. The president really can’t help you on this. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    For a while I believed he was just pandering when he sounded like a moron.

    Now I just think he's a moron.

  • ||

    It's not even being a moron. I think it's utter self-interest. I think this administration is totally unconcerned with any long term effects they may have; the only thing--only--that matters to them is power, influence, and the ability to use this presidency and its huge level of power to deliver shit to their allies, cronies, and the people who will give them unbelievably cushy, high-paying jobs after. Or whatever things they want and can buy with this power and influence that last 8 years at the most, and in his case, probably 4.

    There's no trying to help people; there's not even, I think, that much of a desire for a legacy. It's like making an art thief the master curator of The Louvre for 2 weeks. Oh, he is going to make the most of that time, and then disappear.

  • ||

    this administration is totally unconcerned with any long term effects they may have
    --------------------------
    totally disagree. This WH is absolutely invested in the long term effects because those effects are the only way to enact POTUS' goal of transformational change. This measure will not create jobs and it is not supposed to; IL's Dick Durbin admits that not even Senate Dems will support it.

    The reality is as simple as it is hard to believe - this administration purposely creates conditions that will lead to bad outcomes. Its entire history consists of blaming others for its own missteps. When Dems had both houses, their time was spent on the stimulus and health care, neither of which did or will be beneficial. It's not about helping people; it's about doing the opposite, with the goal of creating chaos and strife so that people will be more amenable to even more govt control of their lives.

    Take a look at the Wall St protests; it's the descendents of the 60's folks with a couple of graybeards rolled in, but with more nonsensical talking points.

  • Maxxx||

    The Wall Street protesters are the perfect symbol of the modern left.

    Completely incoherent psycho babble that amounts to nothing more that "gimme".

    The truth is that Obama's administration is the political equivalent of that movement. Completely incoherent and incompetent. It's easier to believe that they are evil geniuses when the truth is that they are just self important dumb fucks.

  • Tony, MNG, o2||

    Completely incoherent psycho babble that amounts to nothing more that "gimme".

    "PRESENT!!!"

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    C'mon. Don't lump MNG in with those two.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Joe P. Boyle mebbe, but no fair mocking the departed, I suppose.

  • Sir Roderick Glossop||

    I disagree.

  • Mike M.||

    The reality is as simple as it is hard to believe - this administration purposely creates conditions that will lead to bad outcomes.

    It's good to know that there are some people out there who get it.

    Because you're right on the money: this is the first Cloward-Piven presidency in the history of our country.

  • Realist||

    "...and in his case, probably 4."
    You're way underestimating the stupidity of the American people.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Given that B Obama's re-election date draws nearer, the plight of unemployed Americans in the workplace is one that lies heavy on his heart.

  • Yes, as heavy as.....||

    ....the deaths of all those African and Asian civilians who were collateral damage in his drone strikes....not very heavy at all.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's their fault - they should have registered to cast absentee ballots in the U.S.

  • Non-Employer||

    ... solely because of an individual’s status as unemployed.

    Sorry, you're both unemployed and ug, I mean, lacking experience.

  • sevo||

    Meeting:
    A: "OK, folks, how do we try to get more people hired?"
    B: "I got it! Let's put all sorts of limitations on those who could be hired!"
    A: "Great! Run with it!"

  • ||

    Surely this can't pass.

  • ||

    It wasn't going to pass anyway. This is, as Mr Cavanaugh ably put it, just a meaningless sop.

  • ||

    They don't even have enough vote to pass in Democrat majority Senate. Filibusterer notwithstanding. No way of passing this in the House. So this is just a play to his base.

  • rsi||

    Those 99%'ers should be demonstrating in front of the White House.

    I like the guy with the "Make Banks Pay" sticker on his shirt. Talk to The One.

  • Old Mexican||

    (1) publish in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for an employee for any job that includes[...]


    "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    It shall not pass. Period.

  • ||

    Not because of anything like that. You're already restricted in what you can say and do in employment matters.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Pro Libertate,

    You're already restricted in what you can say and do in employment matters.


    That's because Americans are simply too soft. Obama said so.

  • von Laue||

    God Damn. I would take the week off and ruin 99.

  • Fluffy||

    Yes.

    I find that the chicks that were on shows that I watched as a kid were much, much hotter than I realized.

  • ||

    why does anyone believe this administration is interested in improving things? Ignore the campaign speeches; see what the WH does. Please name the initiatives that have helpful, produced positive results, reduced govt influence in your life, or encouraged business growth. There are none, and yet.....

    --the media will support him because not doing so would be a repudiation of the policies IT holds dear
    --the looter class will support him for the obvious reason
    --a largely uninformed populace will not bother to examine the record

  • yup||

    These people realize that they're still not going to be hired right? That the employer can still choose not to hire them once they see on their resume that they're not currently employed? Right? They see that RIGHT!?

  • In Time of War||

    Lawsuits. Now every, single unemployed person who doesn't get a job can claim discrimination.

    "Victims, aren't we all?"

  • A Serious Man||

    Young Barbara Feldon > Anne Hathaway

    And I'm just going to assume that Obama is a self-interested asshole that knows there are valid business reasons for preferring to hire an employed person before an unemployed one but doesn't care because he wants to be hero to the 99 club.

    Btw, if someone already employed gets hired to another job, doesn't taht mean that that persons previous job is now open? So it's not like the jobs aren't there already.

  • Veemee Sashimi||

    Hell the 74 year old Barbara Feldon is probably the hottest 74 year old ever. Granted she's had some work done, but it looks like good work.

  • Greer||

    And I'm just going to assume that Obama is a self-interested asshole that knows there are valid business reasons for preferring to hire an employed person before an unemployed...

    YOU WHAT?

  • ||

    Btw, if someone already employed gets hired to another job, doesn't taht mean that that persons previous job is now open? So it's not like the jobs aren't there already.

    That's not how tuk-er-jerbs works. Us employed people just keep applying for and being hired to new jobs, which we add to our Jobs Pile, like a shiny gold coin on a pile of treasure. And then we HOARD the hell out of that pile till the day we die.

  • Veemee Sashimi||

    I suppose this is covered under the commerce clause again? Or are we _officially_ at the "who gives a shit" point of asking where the authority to do such a thing comes from?

    I suppose asking for the gov't to half-ass a reason why they could do something was a pointless exercise anyway. I guess the death of that charade isn't much of a loss.

  • In Time of War||

    "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
    -Nancy Pelosi-

  • Barack HUSSEIN Obama||

    Do any work you can, even if it’s day labor, rather than building a personal brand as an unemployee.

    Employers should instead discriminate against any applicant who accepts work beneath her station in lieu of federally-extended unemployment compensation.

  • ||

    So...let's say I'm a cardiologist who retired at 35 with a few million dollars. By the age of 60, I've run out of money and go looking for another cardiology job. Haven't done a heart surgery in 25 years. They're saying that the hospital would have to consider me an equal applicant to a younger doctor who has done the same number of heart surgeries as I but has remained active and employed since medical school? If they don't, I sue the hospital for discrimination against the unemployed?

    How retarded are our overlords?

  • Nipplemancer||

    How retarded are our overlords?

    very.

  • Your Overlords||

    Retarded like a fox, we are!

  • ||

    I don't argue with the substance of your point, but, unless a cardiologist has very rich parents, he is probably still paying off his student loans at the age of 35. He is only 5 to 7 years out of his residency and is still getting his practice built up. So, he probably is not retiring rich at that time in his career.

  • ||

    Well a cardiologist who left the field of cardiology and has been working as a cashier at a parking garage for the past 25 years would have the same issue. It's not a matter of being currently unemployed, it's a matter of not having practiced a particular vital job skill for a long time.

    The target of the proposed new law would be employers who are hiring for an actuarial job and are willing to consider a former actuary who's working at a lumber yard, but not a former actuary who has no job.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Isn't a willingness to show up to work a vital job skill for any job?

  • ||

    let's say I'm a cardiologist who retired at 35 with a few million dollars.

    Slow down. At 35, wouldn't you have only JUST finished paying off your student loans?

  • ||

    Somewhere in there I noted that I think discriminating against a person who is not currently working is poor hiring practice – but then again I’ve never had to cull a stack of 500 résumés.

    A personnel officer knows one fact about an applicant who is already employed: The applicant has the skill to get and hold a job (or at least has not alienated his employer enough to get himself fired.)

  • ||

    Wouldn't you also know that about someone who has held a job for 15 years before getting laid off?

  • Mr. Wolk||

    That bunch of Nazis at Overlawyered are just as bad as the bunch of Nazis here.

  • ||

    F-

  • ||

    You shall not pass!!!

  • PantsFan||

    The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
    Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
    The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....tment.html

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    That seems like something that should wait until you're 18. For instance, if I'd gotten tattoos when I was 11, I can only imagine how retarded they'd be.

    Also: what a bunch of weirdoes.

  • A Serious Man||

    Okay now that's just plain disgusting. Can you imagine the shit he's going to have to go through during high school? Not to mention the fact that the school might not treat him as a girl since unless they do major reconstructive surgery he'll still have the male anatomy.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I doubt this kid would be competent to request hormone treatment even if he were capable of understanding the concept. Seems like it could be just as likely to cause him mental damage as having to live 'as a boy' until he's 18. And when in doubt, I know which option I'd choose (hint, not screwing with nature).

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Plus, the kid's already Jewish and has a speech impediment, so I hope he wouldn't let bullying drive him to a suicide attempt before the age of 20.

    I did see this comment:

    I wish puberty blockers had been available to me when I was 11 years old. I knew then. And by law I could not act on my knowledge until after puberty-- after my body had solidified into the wrong shape. This might have kept me from two suicide attempts.
    - Dianne, Los Angeles Ca, 01/10/2011 01:38

    Maybe I'll sound overly dismissive of people with gender dysphoria, but why the hell would it automatically lead to suicide attempts? I can see how it would lead to depression, but to all loss of coping skills?

  • Robert||

    Hell, I'm more dismissive of "gender dysphoria" than that. I think it's a total crock.

    You are the sex you are. There's no way that's a mistake, because there's no intentionality behind it. Now, if you think you'd rather be of a different sex, that may well be, but then you've got to ask what it is about the other sex that you like better. Is it really biologic, i.e. of sex, or is it really of gender, i.e. arbitrary distinctions that society makes? If it's of gender, then it's a gross error to try altering your sex, just as it would be to try to alter a physical thing in the hope that people will call it "le chose" instead of "la chose", because you like the sound of one better.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Because a 3 year old understands the concept of being a girl vs being a boy?

  • aaaaaaaaaa||

    will one of your writers please debunk the hayek/social security bullshit over at the nation? its easy and it'll take about 3 minutes of google labor.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Not it!

  • ||

    Ya know, I bet a lot of the jobs at Reason get assigned in that manner.

    "Ok, we need yet another article explaining the difference between capitalism and cronyism"

    *chorus of NotIts, and 1 person who was too busy playing with their phone at that moment*

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    +1

  • rsi||

    Its like Ayn Rand on welfare: She had the nerve to take her Social Security.

  • Cowboy||

    I believe that this bill is unpassable as a feature, not a bug.

    1. Name a bill that claims to br in support of jobs
    2. Write it in a way that is completely unpassable
    3.????
    4. PROFIT! BLAME THE REPUBLICANS!

  • ||

    The problem is that the Senate Dems aren't going to pass it either. And the claim that the bill will create jobs probably won't matter since most of the country thinks Obama is a sniveling liar at this point.

    Another PR coup for the Obama administration.

  • sevo||

    "The problem is that the Senate Dems aren't going to pass it either."

    Doesn't matter. 2-1/2 years since Obama was sworn in, they're still "Bush's Wars(tm)"

  • cynical||

    Look, I bet a majority of people believe that the Republicans supported the bailouts more than the Democrats. The country is filled with fucking morons, and they vote.

  • Christ on a Cracker||

    It will get through in some form, maybe even worse that this. I keep thinking about ObamaCare. Even supporters of the bill said it was not ready and didn't like it, but they voted for it anyway.

    Don't underestimate the stupidity of congresscritters.

  • Double D||

    Unsupportable

  • jtuf||

    Only hiring employed people is like only dating married people. You end up selecting for employees who are unlikely to be loyal to you. Even so, a new law prohibiting discrimination against unemployed people is a bad idea.

  • db||

    Come on, that's ridiculous. Seriously? By your logic, employers should only ever hire people who are right out of school, and give them a job for the rest of their lives, because changing employers shows "disloyalty."
    Could it also possibly show, maybe, dissatisfaction with compensation? With duties? With management? A general poor fit? A simple desire to try something new? "Loyal" people change employers all the time and maintain good relationships with their previous employers. Sometimes people just need to move on, and it doesn't display treachery to do so.

  • ||

    Only hiring employed people is like only dating married people.

    Uh, no. It's like only dating people who are already dating someone else, which is a strategy some people do actually employ.

  • MNG||

    It's a bit inartfully worded, but the law seems to aim at prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed with any restrictions on speech (here commercial speech which tends to have lower protections) being incidental. What they should have said was that it was unlawful to use unemployment as a criteria in hiring and firing and said nothing about advertisements.

    I understand the usual libertarian complaints about this sort of thing, employers should have the liberty to discriminate based on whatever they want, freedom of association, blah, blah, blah, but it is interesting that the same people who think that so many people are out of work through little fault of their own but rather due to the fault of the government should find it so horrible for the government to try to mitigate its malfeasance by extending a protection to its victims.

  • Double D||

    The way to solve the problem is for the government to retreat from laws and policies that lower employment, not to make even more dumb @#$! laws.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Nah, not really.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Not directed at you, DoubleD. Directed at MNG.

  • BigT||

    This law just invites more bureaucracy, more litigation, more wasted effort and resources. That helps no one.

  • cynical||

    Bureaucracy and litigation helps lawyers and public sector unions. So, if "no one" means Democrats, then, sure.

  • Colin||

    Why do you continually post here when you don't have a shred of libertarianism?

    Do you think you'll convert us?

    Really?

  • Double D||

    It's good not to be an echo chamber...not that I don't think MNG is a deuded fool. Who knows, logic may yet blossom in the minds of at least a few "liberals" or "conservatives."

  • Double D||

    I know...realistically, it ain't gonna happen.

  • Libertarian||

    Shut up! You're interrupting my circle jerk.

  • MNG||

    Who the fuck are you Collie? I've been buying, reading and commenting about Reason for years before I've heard of you here. I agree with some things libertarians do, disagree with some. I have no hope or desire to "convert" anyone, I'm interested in what Reasons write, what the commenters think, and, sometimes, just flat out tickled at the goofy things some of the latter say.

  • sevo||

    "I've been buying, reading and commenting about Reason for years before I've heard of you here"

    Yes, and so what? Your "union seniority" means squat.
    ------
    "I'm interested in what Reasons write, what the commenters think,"

    Bullshit MNG hopes someone will believe; MNG is on the side of angels!

  • sevo||

    "...for the government to try to mitigate its malfeasance by extending a protection to its victims."

    Translation:
    "...for the government to make it worse."

  • Fluffy||

    should find it so horrible for the government to try to mitigate its malfeasance by extending a protection to its victims.

    If they want to pass a law saying that all the 99ers get to kick every Democrat member of Congress in the balls (or snatch) any time they want, that would be OK by me.

    I would not, however, be OK with a law that said that the 99ers could kick me in the balls.

    The government isn't mitigating its malfeasance. It's trying to force me to mitigate its malfeasance.

    But I guess it's easy for the government to think that this is "a small price to pay" (TM-MNG) since it's my balls and not theirs.

  • sevo||

    Any time the phrase "...small price to pay..." is included in an argument, you can be *sure* it's a third-party referring to *your* resources.

  • Britt||

    Exactly.

    "Damn it peasant, if we don't spend that money the latest Good Progressive Thing then you'll just waste it on stupid stuff like big houses in the suburbs and your children.

  • Fluffy||

    Right now every resume that comes in by email that's from a black person is a lawsuit bomb waiting to go off, because of existing employment discrimination law.

    Now every resume that comes in from an unemployed person will also be a lawsuit bomb waiting to go off.

    But I'm sure you think that vastly increasing the litigation risk involved in every new hire posting is "a small price to pay."

    "Hey! We just increased by an order of magnitude the fear you have to live under every time you hire someone, and made the dark cloud of bullshit litigation that hovers over you all the time that much bigger. But since that's your problem and not mine, it's a small price to pay." (TM-MNG)

  • MNG||

    fluffy, you're so melodramatic. Discrimination laws cover all races and more, so any resume from any person might be a "lawsuit bomb" waiting to go off. Of course not discriminating is a good way to protect yourself from that.

    "the fear you have to live under every time you hire someone"

    Won't SOMEBODY think of the job creators?

  • sevo||

    "Of course not discriminating is a good way to protect yourself from that."

    Shorter MNG:
    'You have nothing to hide if you haven't done anything wrong! And you can afford the legal help to prove it.'
    What a shitbag.

  • ||

    Not discriminating + the $100k you'll need to prove it at trial. Are you that divorced from reality?

  • ||

    Not discriminating + the $100k you'll need to prove it at trial. Are you that divorced from reality?

  • ||

    Of course not discriminating is a good way to protect yourself from that.

    Great Caesar's Ghost MNG!!!!! That is, by far, and this is encompassing a lot, the most gut-wrenchingly stupid comment you have made.

    To put it another way: 100 people apply for one job. Since the employer cannot refuse to hire 99 of those people, as that would require some form of discrimination (hint: there was a time when the phrase "that person has discriminating taste" was considered a compliment, as in "to differentiate between similar and dissimilar things") that would no doubt would offend your panty waist sensibilities.

    By your logic, all 100 people should divvy up the job 100 ways so everything is "fair, just and equitable," and the employer can avoid a class action suit. And, in MNG land, all one hundred employee must have full benefits and union scale pay, of course. And people wonder why employers balk at hiring.

    MNG, you are one testicle load that should never have been shot.

  • ||

    interesting that the same people who think that so many people are out of work through little fault of their own but rather due to the fault of the government should find it so horrible for the government to try to mitigate its malfeasance by extending a protection to its victims.

    When your dog shits on the carpet, do you just spray some Febreze on it and walk away?

    The idea that we should pass laws to correct the problems caused by previous laws is exactly why we have tens of thousands of laws on the books.

  • MNG||

    Since you are in the analogy police today I'd like to point out that your analogy is inapt. Only if you equate the policies that caused the unemployment with policies to protect the unemployed under the broad category of "things the government does" does your analogy work. By your thinking the government should stop enforcing contracts (like mortgages) because they made a mess of managing housing policy. After all, both are "things the government does."

  • sevo||

    "By your thinking the government should By your thinking the government should stop enforcing contracts (like mortgages) because they made a mess of managing housing policy. After all, both are "things the government does." because they made a mess of managing housing policy. After all, both are "things the government does."

    MNG, that's lame even by your already low standards:
    "Only if you equate the policies that caused the unemployment with policies to protect the unemployed under the broad category of "things the government does" does your analogy work."
    Regardless of any 'analogy police', bullshit = bullshit and strawmen = strawmen.

  • Tony||

    I proclaim a moratorium on the use of the term "straw man" until you go learn what it means.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Follow your own advice, Tony.

  • Robert||

    Does the carpet have deep enough pile to hide the pile?

  • Robert||

    "It's going to take a lot of fireworks to clean up this mess."

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    What they should have said was that it was unlawful to use unemployment as a criteria in hiring and firing and said nothing about advertisements.


    Pretty much guaranteeing no unemployed person will ever be called for an interview.

    I understand the usual libertarian complaints about this sort of thing, employers should have the liberty to discriminate based on whatever they want, freedom of association, blah, blah, blah,


    People should not be assassinated by the government and blah, blah, blah...

    Do go on, Mr. Ethicist.

    [...]but it is interesting that the same people who think that so many people are out of work through little fault of their own but rather due to the fault of the government should find it so horrible for the government to try to mitigate its malfeasance by extending a protection to its victims.


    Oh sure, what a bunch of contradictory knuckleheads, right? Except that you don't solve a problem created by government by creating another problem by imposing an even more stupid government solution.

  • Double D||

    Do we cheer when an abuser offers his spouse a bandaid after kicking her ass? Maybe he should just stop being an abuser.

  • ||

    As someone who has been unemployed most of the time since january, 2009, I think this law is stupid. My problem is that employers are fucking idiots. First of all, there is the "over qualified" canard? "Dude, you are hyper-competent...we can only have merely competent." How fucking stupid can you be? But what they are really saying is that "I don't want to hire you because I will have to spend money training you and you might leave."

    Fair enough employers but consider this: 1) Where the fuck am I gonna go? Maybe you haven't fucking noticed but there aren't a lot of jobs out there, therefore, there isn't anywhere to go to. 2) In the last three years I've thought A LOT about goals, what I want to achieve and all that happy horseshit. My needs are pretty low. All I want is a roof, some food, a computer good enough to play WOW, but most of all, and this doens't cost you a fucking dime, is for my daughter to be in my life.

    And there is the point just pointed out above: Only hiring employed people is like only dating married people. You end up selecting for employees who are unlikely to be loyal to you.

  • ||

    If employers were only interested in applicants who had lifetime contracts requiring them to work elsewhere, that would be a good analogy.

  • Colin||

    I wouldn't get too worked up about this. It has zero chance of passing.

    Zero.

  • ||

    Excellent point. I used to fret about every stupid bill some politician cooked up, but then I realized most of them fail.

    It's the bills that are written up in advance and whipped out in response to some crisis and fast-tracked for a 4 am Sunday vote with "we have to do something" bipartisan support before you've even heard about them that scare me.

  • ||

    It's quite a sop to lawyers and the litigious, as well. I wonder if by any chance it was written by lawyers.

  • Lawyers||

    For a measly $400 per hour, this was the best we could do.

  • ||

    Where the fuck am I gonna go?

    Maybe the boss is afraid you'll end up with *his* job.

  • ||

    the law seems to aim at prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed

    What happened to the idea of trying to find the best man/woman for the fucking job? What, for that matter, happened to the idea that a hiring is not blind charity but a business decision driven by marginal return?

    This is what happens when you let the praise-for-no-reason mob run things.
    "We're all special in our own way; 'qualifications' and 'skills' are artificial constructs imposed by the patriarchy to maintain their oppressive hold on power."

  • ||

    Do any work you can, even if it’s day labor

    "The world needs ditchdiggers, too."

  • sven||

    I think one of the things the left doesn't understand that there's always 50% of people above average, and 50% below.

  • ||

    Strictly speaking, if you had a sample set of an odd number of people, this statement isn't even possible.

    And if you had a set of 20 people who took a test, and 19 of them scored a 51 and the other person got a 31, the average would be 50, yet 19 would be above average and only one would be below average.

  • Professional Liberal Douchebag||

    "Best person for the job" = racist/exist/anti-gay dog-whistle.

  • ||

    Ah, yes! The wisdom of Judge Elihu Smails strikes again.

  • sven||

    PROBLEM: Large number of unemployed Americans having difficulty finding work.

    DESIRED OUTCOME: Putting those people back to work.

    SOLUTION: Write laws that tell people who may hire them that they can't discriminate against them because they're unemployed.

    I guess I'm confused: how does this "create jobs" or "create a hospitable business climate for new jobs to be created?"

    Then again, I'm not a politician.

  • sevo||

    I think the problem is here:
    "DESIRED OUTCOME: Putting those people back to work."
    Ignoring the question of whether Obama and Co. are beginning to realize they are incapable of 'creating jobs', I'm pretty sure the actual desired outcome = "looking like we're trying to put people back to work, thereby increasing our chances of keeping our jobs".

  • ||

    Adding new legal hoops for employers also strikes me as a strange way to get people hiring again.

    Tim, that's why you're just not Elected Representative material. You JUST DON'T GET IT.

  • steve||

    Since when did the 99-ers get uniforms? (above obama in the pic) Did they form their own corps (or corpse) complete w/ C#nt caps?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I was hoping their uniform would be a modified San Francisco 49ers jersey. I am disappoint.

  • NotSure||

    All this will do is that companies will not risk interviewing more potential people for jobs, instead they will rely on closed networks of other companies and recruitment agencies to protect them from potential lawsuits that will arise from this law. Then idiots like MNG will say that another law needs to be passed to stop that new practice, and when that law passes an business find new way to protect themselves, another law will be passed, and then another etc. etc.

    Yet there are some people who are sincerly puzzled why outsourcing is the only growing business, and rather have their business in a supposedly "backward" without all those wonderful "rights" for its people.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Same old story here with any government-derived solution these days--take an already overly-complex bureaucratic system and argue that increasing that complexity will help solve the problem.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement