Friday, December 02, 2011

Legislation of the Day

President Obama has been flogging his American Jobs Act for some time. To little effect, thankfully, so far.

But the flaws in the bill go beyond its costs. Specifically, Section 374(a) of Obama's AJA (page 130) would it make it unlawful for a company looking to add workers to "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." According to the Diversity Executive newsletter:
Employers who do not follow the proposed law would face monetary civil remedies. The provision would give those claiming discrimination a right to sue and violators would face fines of up to $1,000 per day, plus attorney fees and other costs.
The effect, says Michael Saltsman in the Wall Street Journal "would make employment status a new protected class--like age, race or sex--when it comes to hiring." As American Thinker's K.E. Campbell observes:
While such a law would be a boon for the labor bar and the culture of victimhood, it would have opposite its intended effect on hiring, assuming you buy into the premise that the actual goal of the bill is to increase employment. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R - TX), who has been an outspoken critic of the bill and the unemployed-as-protected class proposal in particular, thinks the Act should be titled "The Plaintiffs' Lawyers Full Employment Bill."

The logic that lowering employers' litigation risks will lead to greater employment escapes liberals. And overlooked in such a meddling provision, however well intended, is that every newly hired currently employed person will leave behind a vacant position in need of filling.

This country needs another protected class like it needs another Solyndra. But this bill isn't about increasing employment, self-sufficiency, and prosperity. Like this President, it is about "classes" and class warfare, special interest groups, and identity politics.
Count me with Mr. Saltsman:
The proposed legislation to address it would create a tremendous new liability for employers while doing little to lower the unemployment rate. The only employment it would spur is in law firms eager to represent applicants convinced they were denied a job because they didn't already have one.

4 comments:

Bob in LA said...

He touts his bill not as a jobs measure anymore, but as a fairness increaser. That's liberal code for the rich liberals get richer.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> like it needs another Solyndra

Hey, a couble Solyndras here, two Solyndras there, sooner or later it adds up to *real money*.

>>> That's liberal code for the rich liberals get richer.

or the powerful ones get more power.

LOL, word verif is "crummy": 'krumme' :^D

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

I wasn't aware this country had a big problem with "not hiring somebody because he's unemployed".

Could somebody enlighten me about the reason Our Benevolent Bureaucratic Class has decided to focus on preventing this Eeevil Practice??


wv= diaguarm
I remember diagramming sentences when I was a kid... Now we're supposed to show by notation which firearms are best suited for which special tasks?

Anonymous said...

Excellent philosophy! Many employers want to start relationships with potential employees who are currently employed, but are we also at the point where we should also apply these ideas to how we date as well? If people who are not currently employed represent 'problem employees', then surely people who are not currently in a relationship when you want to date them could represent 'problem mates' to many people. The solution to that is to have an affair.

Welcome to the Ashley Madison.com era.

www.ashleymadison.com