I thought So Many People Where Looking For Work

[That Guy]

speaking of which, I'm newly out of the air force and looking now BS in comp sci (summa cum laude) 210 credits at a 3.96, military experience, avionics, pro audio on multiple world tours, lots of volunteer hours and all that

had something lined up, but they got a new super and everything kinda changed. I'll probably end up disappearing into IT/def con/3 letter agency/intel hell, but if you know someone, feel free to let me know.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If you're interested in building anything resembling a meaningful career, the worst thing you can do is stay out of work for an extended period of time.

To prospective employers, the longer you're out of work the worse you're regarded. It says that you either haven't been able to beat out others for available jobs (you're not that good) or that you haven't been looking very hard (that you don't care).

If Obama's lastest jobs bill passes as is i will be able to now sue Schneed if he doesnt hire me for taking my dream sabbatical.....

Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

fd did you hire the cell phone lady or anyone else yet? Do you use the phrase "jobless need not apply" on your grocery store bulletin board ads?

thatguy have you been able to find a job yet? You sound like a pretty well rounded and qualified "guy".

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

If Obama's lastest jobs bill passes as is i will be able to now sue Schneed if he doesnt hire me for taking my dream sabbatical.....

Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

fd did you hire the cell phone lady or anyone else yet? Do you use the phrase "jobless need not apply" on your grocery store bulletin board ads?

thatguy have you been able to find a job yet? You sound like a pretty well rounded and qualified "guy".

Wow. Interesting idea on legislation. If it ever passes I would certainly follow the law.

But imagine the number of lawsuits that would stem from this. Talk about a drain. I'd probably err on the side of caution to avoid even the potential of getting the company sued - so if I had two candidates, one unemployed and the other employed, as long as they were even remotely close in qualification I would certainly opt for the unemployed. I think a lot of hiring managers would do the same.

This would act as a form of affirmative action for the unemployed. Maybe that's what Obama wants, but I hate the concept. Hiring should be blind to need, it should be based entirely on what's best for the company hiring.

But like I said, I'm interested in doing the right thing. Even though I hope it doesn't become law, I'd certainly abide if it does.

[firstdown]

This just shows how much Obama lacks understanding business and the real world.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This just shows how much Obama lacks understanding business and the real world.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced similar measures. Obama said recently that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense," especially because many people find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Your post lacked a little substance around that, but I see where you are going. He's right, many people lost jobs because an entire company went under, or it suffered so badly in the downturn that it had to cut so deep that they had to lay off even very good employees.

But many does not equate to most. Most (not all) of those laid off from work were laid off by companies looking to trim costs. When making cuts, companies might cut 5 or 10% of the workforce. To decide who stays and who goes, they go through a basic cost benefit type of thinking. "Management has told me to cut $60,000 in salaries. I could cut Frank and Bill who make $30,000 each. Or I could just cut John who makes $60,000."

If Frank and Bill combined are more productive and useful than John, then Frank and Bill stay. If John alone is more useful than Frank and Bill, then he stays.

So usefulness comes into the thought process. The whole point of layoffs is to reduce costs while maintaining as much capability and productivity as possible. So for those chosen as layoff victims, there's often a usefulness problem. That's where the stigma comes from, and rightly so.

Now, AGAIN, this is the case for most but not all. Obama's trying to do right by those good employees laid off by no fault of their own. But in doing so he gives the rest of the unemployed a reason to reject the notion that maybe they were laid off because of relative ineffectiveness. And it will all come along with nuisance lawsuits.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This would act as a form of affirmative action for the unemployed. Maybe that's what Obama wants, but I hate the concept. Hiring should be blind to need, it should be based entirely on what's best for the company hiring.

Yeah id like to say its un-American, but Im starting to realize that while that may have been true 50+ years ago it may no longer be, for reasons that are arguably better or worse.

Its also definitely a political thing. If come reelection Obama can say I tried to do many things to get the American people back to work, and cite this as a example, but the Republican Congress has shown they would rather play politics and keep Americans out of work and at home then to compromise. Although Obama may also truly feel the un-employed should be an addition to the protected classes of people.

In this recession and in any other recession I completely agree that many people lost their jobs through no direct fault of their own, but America was founded on the principle that our country offers the pursuit of happiness to everyone, but not a guarantee. Maybe just the promise of a pursuit is a outdated concept, either way im never for discriminating against one group of people so that another group may benefit.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Your post lacked a little substance around that, but I see where you are going. He's right, many people lost jobs because an entire company went under, or it suffered so badly in the downturn that it had to cut so deep that they had to lay off even very good employees.

But many does not equate to most. Most (not all) of those laid off from work were laid off by companies looking to trim costs. When making cuts, companies might cut 5 or 10% of the workforce. To decide who stays and who goes, they go through a basic cost benefit type of thinking. "Management has told me to cut $60,000 in salaries. I could cut Frank and Bill who make $30,000 each. Or I could just cut John who makes $60,000."

If Frank and Bill combined are more productive and useful than John, then Frank and Bill stay. If John alone is more useful than Frank and Bill, then he stays.

So usefulness comes into the thought process. The whole point of layoffs is to reduce costs while maintaining as much capability and productivity as possible. So for those chosen as layoff victims, there's often a usefulness problem. That's where the stigma comes from, and rightly so.

Now, AGAIN, this is the case for most but not all. Obama's trying to do right by those good employees laid off by no fault of their own. But in doing so he gives the rest of the unemployed a reason to reject the notion that maybe they were laid off because of relative ineffectiveness. And it will all come along with nuisance lawsuits.

The problem I have with what Obama said was the highlight part, "absolutely no sense," So by saying that he thinks that 100% of the people unemployeed are hard at work looking for a new job and its just bad luck they have been without work for a few years.

[dmek25]

i think what he is trying to say is that the people that are willing to work....it makes no sense. i guess interpretation is everything

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The problem I have with what Obama said was the highlight part, "absolutely no sense," So by saying that he thinks that 100% of the people unemployeed are hard at work looking for a new job and its just bad luck they have been without work for a few years.

I think your interpretation of his meaning is incorrect.

"Absolutely no sense" does not mean that he necessarily believes that 100% of unemployed people want to find a job. I think what he was getting at was that allowing any type of discrimination against the unemployed makes no sense because it defeats any efforts aimed at getting them back to work.

[mlmpetert]

I dont know i could it being interpretation either or both ways:

Sybil Wilkes, a co-host of the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," asked the president about long-term unemployment and businesses that tell applicants, "If you're unemployed, we don't want to hear from you."

Obama noted that the long-term unemployed have a tougher time landing jobs and said a stronger overall economy would make employers less choosy. "But we have seen instances in which employers are explicitly saying we don't want to take a look at folks who've been unemployed," the president said.

"Well, that makes absolutely no sense, and I know there's legislation that I'm supportive of that says you cannot discriminate against folks because they've been unemployed, particularly when you've seen so many folks who, through no fault of their own, ended up being laid off because of the difficulty of this recession."


Obama: Discrimination Against Jobless 'Makes Absolutely No Sense'

Im in favor of what NJ is doing where you cant say "jobless need not apply", but to essentially give affirmative action status to the unemployed makes absolutely no sense to a guy like me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think your interpretation of his meaning is incorrect.

"Absolutely no sense" does not mean that he necessarily believes that 100% of unemployed people want to find a job. I think what he was getting at was that allowing any type of discrimination against the unemployed makes no sense because it defeats any efforts aimed at getting them back to work.

Well if he is wanting to pass a law making it illegal then he thinks something along those lines.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if he is wanting to pass a law making it illegal then he thinks something along those lines.

Well it's ridiculous to think that most people don't want to work. Collecting unemployment is OK but you don't end up collecting more on unemployment than you were paid by the job you were laid off from. Few people want to continue experiencing that lower pay rate, most want to get back to earning what they did before being laid off.

You're right, there are some people that don't. But that's not the issue, and it's not true that MOST don't want to work. Obama just wants to make sure employers don't freeze the long term unemployed out of the workforce.

Again, I don't agree with that in the least, just clarifying his position for you.