Plan B Forum

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... yed-people

Talk about adding insult to injury...there ought to be a law!

There is in New Jersey, but this should be a federal law.

'Unemployed need not apply' a disturbing trend

I Just Work Here


Companies that bar unemployed job candidates are shortsighted – and wrong


September 04, 2011|Ask Rex Huppke: I Just Work Here


I recently found an array of online job postings that greet seekers with these encouraging words: "MUST BE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED, NO EXCEPTIONS."

How lovely. In a country with 13.9 million unemployed residents, that's akin to a restaurant requiring a hungry person to bring a sandwich in before they can buy a sandwich.

Still, these postings are on multiple job-search sites, coming from companies ranging from retail shops to law firms.

The "unemployed need not apply" concept has become prevalent enough that it has been banned by the Legislature in New Jersey.

In Illinois, Democratic Sens. Kimberly Lightford and Annazette Collins have proposed the Employment Advertisement Fairness Act. The bill says employers may not "publish in print or on the Internet an advertisement for a job that contains a statement indicating that current employment is a job qualification."

At least two other states are considering similar bills and a federal law — the Fair Employment Opportunity Act — has also been proposed.

Allow me to use the soapbox I've been given to say this to any and all companies viewing this approach as expedient or sensible: Knock it off.

Let's set aside all possible explanations — it narrows the number of applicants that need to be interviewed, and people who've been out of work might be harder to get up to speed than people already working. This practice is simply wrong. At a time when millions — millions — of Americans are frustrated and desperate and demoralized, throwing up another roadblock to gainful employment is reprehensible.

It's also painfully shortsighted.

From a practical standpoint, companies that bar unemployed candidates could easily be overlooking the most qualified workers. The jobless pool is large and rich with talented people who lost jobs through no fault of their own. It seems counterproductive to flatly assume that a person who has a job is better than someone without one.

And then there's the matter of whether this practice is discriminatory. The unemployed are not a protected class, but legal experts say that barring the jobless from submitting applications could be de facto discrimination.

"That would be the angle one would want to take to challenge these policies," said Katherine Stone, an expert in labor and employment law at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. "The people who are unemployed are disproportionally minorities or older people or disabled people. You could claim that this is having a disparate impact on them."

That's one aspect of these ads being examined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Spokeswoman Christine Saah Nazer said: "We're monitoring the situation, and unfortunately we're still seeing these ads. We're concerned that barring unemployed people may disqualify perfectly qualified candidates, including minorities. Obviously in this economic climate, the commission wants to ensure that job seekers don't experience any discriminatory practices."

She said the commission views the prevalence of these ads as "an emerging issue."

The Fair Employment Opportunity Act, introduced in July by Democratic U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Hank Johnson of Georgia, would get on top of this problem. I spoke with a congressional aide about the bill, and she said it doesn't attempt to make the unemployed a protected class.

"It simply outlaws this practice," she said, "which is very harmful and very dark. It's not operating out of our best values. When you think of someone who's unemployed and think of all the trauma that causes in a household, economically and on a self-esteem level, to throw up barriers to even getting a job interview is just unthinkable."

One of the jobs I saw advertised recently was for a director of operations at a growing McDonald's franchise in Iowa. It said applicants must meet certain "nonnegotiable criteria," and one of those was being currently employed.

I contacted Donya Proud, a spokeswoman for McDonald's, and she said the franchise owner was not aware that the "must be currently employed" language had been put on the posting.

"That was not the direction that he gave," she said. "He has contacted the recruitment company, and they'll either change it or he'll use a different company. This is definitely not a policy that we would ever allow."

A similar explanation was given last year when media outlets in Georgia noticed a job posting by phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson that told the unemployed not to apply.

I really don't care who is to blame, whether it's the companies themselves or recruiting firms or job-search websites. A message needs to be sent, loud and clear, that this is not an approach that can be tolerated.

Most of the problems people encounter in the workplace can be so easily avoided by following one rule: Be a decent human being.

We're navigating the worst economic crisis and most miserable job market since the Great Depression. It's a moment in our history that screams out for unity, and yet much of what we see day to day in political and economic spheres is division.

We don't need companies adding to that by cordoning off jobs and allowing access only to those already employed.

It's wrong. And if business owners can't see that simple fact, a law should be put in place to remind them of the bounds of common decency.

A national boycott of these basturds would make them sing a different tune!

I agree, Dales. Unfortunately, if the hiring company has employed a recruiting firm, how would you know who to boycott?

Wasn't barring discrimination in hiring because of unemployment status part of Obama's jobs bill? Or am I remembering that we considered it in Massachusetts.

H.R.2501 -- Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 2501 IH


112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2501
To prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual's status or history of unemployment.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 12, 2011
Ms. DELAURO (for herself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. FILNER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. NORTON, Ms. MOORE, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. FARR, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Ms. RICHARDSON, and Mr. ELLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual's status or history of unemployment.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that denial of employment opportunities to individuals because they are or have been unemployed is discriminatory and burdens commerce by--

(1) reducing personal consumption and undermining economic stability and growth;

(2) squandering human capital essential to the Nation's economic vibrancy and growth;

(3) increasing demands for State and Federal unemployment insurance benefits, reducing trust fund assets, and leading to higher payroll taxes for employers, cuts in benefits for jobless workers, or both;

(4) imposing additional burdens on publicly funded health and welfare programs; and

(5) depressing income, property, and other tax revenues that states, localities and the Federal Government rely on to support operations and institutions essential to commerce.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to prohibit consideration of an individual's status as unemployed in screening for or filling positions except where a requirement related to employment status is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to successful performance in the job and to eliminate the burdens imposed on commerce by excluding such individuals from employment.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act--

(1) the term `employer' means any person engaged in commerce or any industry or activity affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and includes--

(A) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer with respect to employing individuals to work for the employer; and

(B) any successor in interest of an employer.

(2) the term `employment agency' means any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for individuals opportunities to work for an employer and includes an agent of such a person, and includes any person who maintains an Internet website that publishes advertisements or announcements of job openings;

(3) the term `affected individual' means any person who was refused consideration for employment or was not hired by an employer because of the person's current employment status, or any person who was not considered, screened, or referred for employment opportunities by an employment agency because of the person's current employment status;

(4) the term `status as unemployed' means an individual's present or past unemployment regardless of the length of time such individual was unemployed; and

(5) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Labor.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITED ACTS.

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

(1) refuse to consider for employment or refuse to offer employment to an individual because of the individual's status as unemployed;

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

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

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

(3) direct or request that an employment agency take an individual's status as unemployed into account in screening or referring applicants for employment.

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

(1) refuse to consider or refer an individual for employment based on the individual's status as unemployed;

(2) limit, segregate, or classify individuals in any manner that may limit their access to information about jobs or referral for consideration of jobs because of their status as unemployed; or

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

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

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

(c) Interference With Rights, Proceedings or Inquiries- It shall be unlawful for any employer or employment agency to--

(1) interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this Act; or

(2) refuse to hire, to discharge, or in any other manner to discriminate against any individual because such individual--

(A) opposed any practice made unlawful by this Act;

(B) has filed any charge, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this Act;

(C) has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this Act; or

(D) has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this Act.

(d) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, consideration by an employer or employment agency of an individual's status as unemployed shall not be an unlawful employment practice where an individual's employment in a similar or related job for a period of time reasonably proximate to the hiring of such individual is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to successful performance of the job that is being filled.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Civil Action by Individual-

(1) LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES- Any employer or employment agency that violates section 4(a) and (b) shall be liable to any affected individual--

(A) for actual damages equal to--

(i) the amount of--

(I) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such individual by reason of the violation; or

(II) in a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the individual, any actual monetary losses sustained by the individual as a direct result of the violation or a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation per day, whichever is greater;

(ii) the interest on the amount described in clause (i) calculated at the prevailing rate; and

(iii) an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to the sum of the amount described in clause (i) and the interest described in clause (ii), except that if an employer or employment agency that has violated section 4 proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission that violated section 4 was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of section 4, such court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of the liability to the amount and interest determined under clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; and

(B) for such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment and compensatory and punitive damages.

(2) RIGHT OF ACTION- An action to recover the damages or equitable relief prescribed in paragraph (1) of this subsection may be maintained against any employer or employment agency in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more persons for and in behalf of--

(A) the affected individual; or

(B) the affected individual and other individuals similarly situated.

(3) FEES AND COSTS- The court in such an action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff, allow a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid by the defendant.

(4) LIMITATIONS- The right provided by paragraph (2) of this subsection to bring an action by or on behalf of any affected individual shall terminate--

(A) on the filing of a complaint by the Secretary in an action under subsection (d) in which restraint is sought of any violation of section 4; or

(B) on the filing of a complaint by the Secretary in an action under subsection (b) in which a recovery is sought of the damages described in paragraph (1)(A) owing to an affected individual by an employer or employment agency liable under paragraph (1), unless the action described in subparagraph (A) or (B) is dismissed without prejudice on motion of the Secretary.

(b) Action by the Secretary-

(1) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION- The Secretary shall receive, investigate, and attempt to resolve complaints of violations of section 4 in the same manner that the Secretary receives, investigates, and attempts to resolve complaints of violations of sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 and 207).

(2) CIVIL ACTION- The Secretary may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction--

(A) to enjoin violations of this title and seek other relief going forward necessary to prevent future violations;

(B) to recover--

(i) the damages described in subsection (a)(1)(A);

(ii) in the case of a violation of section 4(c), a civil penalty of not less than $250 per violation; or

(iii) such other equitable relief the Court deems appropriate.

(3) SUMS RECOVERED- Any sums recovered by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) shall be held in a special deposit account and shall be paid, on order of the Secretary, directly to each affected individual. Any such sums recovered pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) that are not paid to an affected individual because of inability to do so within a period of 3 years and any sums recovered pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) shall be deposited into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

(c) Limitation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), an action under subsection (a) may be brought not later than 2 years after the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which the action is brought, provided that the limitations for filing an action shall be tolled during the period that the Secretary is considering a complaint against any defendant named in a complaint filed with the Secretary under subsection (b)(1) above.

(2) WILLFUL VIOLATION- In the case of such action brought for a willful violation of section 4, such action may be brought within 3 years of the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which such action is brought, provided that the limitations for filing an action by an individual shall be tolled during the period that the Secretary is considering a complaint pursuant to subsection (b)(1).

(3) COMMENCEMENT- In determining when an action is commenced by the Secretary under this section for the purposes of this subsection, it shall be considered to be commenced on the date when the Secretary files a complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(d) Action for Injunction by Secretary- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, in an action brought by the Secretary--

(1) to restrain violations of section 4; and

(2) to award such other equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment and monetary damages.

(e) Solicitor of Labor- The Solicitor of Labor may appear for and represent the Secretary on any litigation brought under this section.

(A companion bill S. 1471, was introduced by Senator Blumenthal of CT in August)

Wow.

Social Darwinism of the most ruthless kind. It treats all of the output of the prior history of layoffs, business failures, firings for cause, people who had to leave work to care for a family member, or people who just graduated from school and are not yet employed as a selection process for "more desirable" vs "less desirable" employees.

Now it is true that if someone was 1 out of 5 doing a similar job who were laid off they were more likely to be the worst in terms of value per cost to the employer (assuming that the employer is a rational agent). So that the unemployed as a class would be a somewhat richer source of 'bottom shelf' than the employed. On the other hand there are a lot of much more motivated people looking for work who don't feel as entitled as those who (perhaps not rationally) feel more secure in their current jobs. We hired someone for shipping who had been out of work for a year and he works like 3 people.

yrs,
rubato

If a business doesn't want to hire people who are currently unemployed, how would a law change what they do?

They would be required to interview more people than they want and then they would hire someone that is currently employed.

I was lucky (and competent) to get my current job I was laid off by my first employer because my manager figured I was good enough to get another job. The guy who I got laid off with told me he thought that I was getting laid off because he was black and management wanted to make it look good by tossing a more than qualified white guy at the same time. While I have my doubts about that line of reasoning I know enough about the culture of that place to dismiss it out of hand. I heard through the grapevine that all of my immediate supervisors threw a fit at my manager for even putting my name on the "potential layoff list". Unfortunately that pissed my 10 years of seniority out the window and placed me as the low guy on the totem poll for every subsequent job in a steadily worsening economy. By the time I got my current job I was so discouraged at the prospects of getting a real job again that I had all but stopped looking for work.

The strangest thing is this is the most secure position I've ever held.

Joe Guy wrote:If a business doesn't want to hire people who are currently unemployed, how would a law change what they do?

They would be required to interview more people than they want and then they would hire someone that is currently employed.

The same way a law changes it if a business doesn't want to hire people who are white/men/disabled/pregnant/Latvian/Catholic/under 40. By providing someone who believes they have been unlawfully discriminated against with the ability to file a complaint, have it investigated, and have a determination made on whether the employer's actions violated the law.

I don't see a any social benefit to such a law which is worth the cost of enactment and enforcement and I can see no civil-rights violation which is corrected. Just more time and money wasted on lawyers that could have gone to something useful.

And there has not been any evidence that the percentage of companies using this screening tool is large enough to matter. It is more a matter of a knee-jerk reaction to something that pisses people off generating a complicated and expensive solution to a non-problem.


yrs,
rubato

It's only a "non-problem" to those out of work and unemployed.

Stupid employers are a fact of life. But I doubt that there are more than a handful of employers stupid enough to publish a policy so patently counterproductive. Anyone who doesn't know that some excellent people are losing their jobs these days is hopelessly out of touch.

But it is entirely rational for an employer to want to know if you are currently employed, and the circumstances surrounding your unemployed status.

You should be able to explain it in a coherent and truthful way.

On my last period of unemployment, I was turned down on at least three occasions by employers who did not want to hire a subordinate who was more experienced and knowledgeable than they were. Could we pass a law to prevent this?

I think you need to show that the number of potential positions effected by this policy are large enough to matter.

Otherwise you're just being pissy and giving away a huge subsidy to lawyers who will suck up most of the benefit of this law and do nothing for the unemployed.

yrs,
rubato

dgs49 wrote:"...
On my last period of unemployment, I was turned down on at least three occasions by employers who did not want to hire a subordinate who was more experienced and knowledgeable than they were. Could we pass a law to prevent this?

Pass a law to prevent your own self-delusion?

Difficult.

yrs,
rubato