Obama employment bill would prohibit companies from turning down unemployed applicants**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836466...iness-careers/

**But we know that it really only prevents companies from overtly discriminating on this basis.

**Should the government be intervening in this regard, though? There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc. (Does the reason behind the unemployment matter? Are they going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal? For example, for generations, stay-at-home mothers who went back into the labor force have been denied employment because they were unemployed, lacked job history, lacked experience, etc. Is that also going to be covered with this bill? Or will gender and other forms of discrimination be kept under the rug in preference of "unemployed discrimination"?)

What say you, GCers?

Enacting this kind of legislation is going to accomplish nothing.

IMHO, the only thing that the government can do to encourage corporations to prefer the unemployed over the employed in their hiring practices is to show them the money by offering some short term tax break for hiring an unemployed worker. It may not change the mind of a person who thinks that the only reason that someone could possibly be out of work is that the job seeker is somehow unworthy, but it couldn't hurt.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have to bring a resume to Walmart to apply for a job. You do, however, have to complete an application that gives your prior education and employment.

When the only jobs you've had for the past 25 years are as an accountant/financial analyst, what would you put on the application? That you've never worked? I don't think they'd hire that person either.

For me, at least, comes down to the reason for the sustained unemployment. I've been hearing about this on NPR and I have mixed feelings too.

I don't know too many people who have been unemployed for long periods of time involuntarily. I have a few friends (unmarried without children) who were laid off, but had handsome severance packages and unemployment benefits, which allowed them to find a job at their own leisure without having to dip into savings. Even then, many of them still took freelance work in order to keep their skills up or bumped up their volunteer involvements. Some took pay cuts because they needed the insurance and the income. I know that our experience is a result of where we live and our education level, so I can't apply that to someone who's in Detroit or Cleveland--where the jobs just aren't there. Maybe in places like that a bill is more important?

BUT...I have two friends who have been unemployed for years and it's through their own actions. I'm not sure a bill would--or should--help them. One left her job without a back-up in early 2008...she worked for a small company where she had a C-level position in name only. So, she spent two years looking for a C-level position without the qualifications. Some of our other friends have urged her to lower her sights but she refuses. She's gotten some freelance work here and there, and she moved back in with her dad so she's not paying crazy rent, but her pride is keeping her unemployed.

Another friend/former co-worker, one of our admins, was laid off two years ago this week. She temped here and there for a few months, but she hasn't had any work that stuck. She doesn't have a college degree--and this is in a town where receptionists have bachelors degrees--and she feels that since she had admin experience at our company that she should be hired at the same position anywhere else. Right now, she's living off unemployment.

They have completely unrealistic expectations of what positions they should be applying for, and neither of them really have a good explanation for why they've been unemployed for years. I'd love for both of them to have jobs but I really don't think they're going to do so without a real re-assessment of their situations.

-----

Also, I wonder if widespread unemployment in certain groups and regions is related to lack of other marketable skills. In some cities, you could go directly from HS to working at the factory without developing any real skills. This is probably hurting workers with a decade or two until retirement, since there's no place else to go and developing new skills is logistically or financially impossible (or seems that way). Growing up, they were never encouraged to develop skills or hobbies because they were "unnecessary," since you could work at the plant and make a decent living and get a pension too.

But--sometimes it's those outside skills and hobbies that make a difference. I had several sorority sisters who were dancers and opted not to pursue it as a career, but they were able to teach dance and yoga/pilates part-time in college and into their adulthood, supplementing their young professional incomes. One of my friends played piano for decades--when people in his hometown in California were unable to continue to pay for private lessons, he was able to offer his services at a lower price. Every job interview I've ever had has been through a connection--through organizations I belonged to. Those outside skills and hobbies can open up a world of networking and potential sources of income.

The new generation of workers will have to learn to think outside of the 20-years-and-a-gold-watch-and-a-pension box and develop innovative ways to earn an income and to supplement it. Parents will have to encourage their kids to develop hobbies and interests outside of the classroom since a college degree or vocational training alone may not be enough to keep one competitive in this market. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes down.

Eeek! This was long.

Maybe, maybe not @ amIblue and AGDee

Either way, job workshops have encouraged people to edit and tweak their resume'. Resume` refers to any account of education and work history, even if you are not submitting an actual resume`. That is how people have always highlighted certain aspects of themselves for certain jobs--the same applies to downplaying certain aspects of yourself for certain jobs.

If you are unable to do that for whatever reasons, do not be shocked if you apply for a job where an MBA or having a certain job history will be frowned upon. Of course Walmart would not hire an MBA to be a cashier. They shouldn't.

It'll be good to get the trial lawyers rich.

I don't like the idea of someone being written off by an employer just because he is currently employed but that being said I don't think we should have a regulation on it. As others have said, while the uptick in discrimination lawsuits may be good for the lawyers, the employers may cut down on hiring to avoid lawsuits or worse yet, just shut down their U.S. operations and move to an "anything goes" place like Mexico or Asia.

I was watching a news story on CBS yesterday about this movement and they interviewed a few dum-dum's who quit their job so they can protest indefinitely... hopefully that move doesn't f*ck them in the long run. From what I've been hearing from these protesters (on TV) I'm starting to believe that their gripes are misdirected. They should be protesting Washington, not Wall ST.

:rolleyes: They quit their jobs to protest? In THIS economy!?!?! :eek:

If it does f**k them in the long run...I certainly wouldn't feel bad. Their parents might, since they will probably be camping out in their basement when they are not "protesting."

And I agree 100% on the unemployment hiring regulation issue. Just an overall bad idea. What if the best candidate happens to be employed?

Wellllll...of course not all of those people out there are unemployed or protesting only during their off-time. It isn't uncommon for people to make protesting a full-time job. Part of the protest is to fully protest. It proves you truly believe in the protest.

I just hope they don't blame the 1% for their unemployment.

@ Bold

But what are they trying to accomplish again? I get what they are feeling, just still not sure what they actually want to see happen.

- Ok, lets say we tax the "rich" at an extra 5 or 10 percent, that money would most likely just go to fill in the billions in dollars deficits that the U.S. Gov has every fiscal year. I don't see tuition going down, medical costs going down, jobs springing up and the economy recovering just because a family making 300k a year pays an additional 1k in taxes.

For starters, I meant to type "I just hope they don't blame the 1% for their unemployment." :)

I don't know what they hope to accomplish. Perhaps what Warren Buffet recommended.

Hmmm. I've read lots of posts here from folks with varying takes on OWS, but I largely agree with yours.

And I agree with this one too!

Hey, if they are "demanding" a free college education AND a living wage whether they have a job or not, why do they need to waste four years in college in the first place? Anyone else find this contradictory? Why not spend the ENTIRE four years getting stoned instead?

http://www.occupyvancouver.com/

Similar protests are happening north of the border also.

I can't stand you. At all. LOL

LOL

Oscar finally has a reason to grouch.

Kanye West? That's so random.

LOL @ occupysesamestreet!

I have been bantering back and forth with someone on the Occupy Detroit FB page, trying to get them to explain their "movement" to me. They are beginning at 4 pm this Friday, meeting at the Spirit of Detroit statue and then marching at 6 pm to Grand Circus Park, through the financial district, so I said:

You all realize that downtown Detroit completely clears out at that time on a Friday night? The only businesses that you'll be affecting adversely are the restaurant, theater, and shop owners who are part of the 99%, who have been brave enough and who believe in Detroit enough to risk opening a business along Woodward in their efforts to try to re-vitalize Detroit. Places like Good Girls Go To Paris and Union Street which are our treasurers are going to be hurt that weekend but the financial district C-levels will not be anywhere around.

The response I got was that nobody had any intention of disrupting business, so I responded...

Riots of '67 anyone? You think normal patrons aren't going to be afraid of thousands of protestors and the DPD in riot gear? Detroit is very different than NYC or Boston. The very few 1% here have been investing in the city, desperately trying to keep it alive. Illitch, Karmanos, the big names have worked hard to keep this city alive. I would hate for these protests to tear down what people have been trying to build.

Responses:
The event is not an attack on the local bussiness or people like the Illitch family. its in support of the national event. I also will be supporting the local bussiness while downtown.

i think u will be surprised to see what really happens....we r detroiters...and proud to be....we dont want to destroy anything just help build something better....i hope u come and not listen to the news spread lies and try to scare u

I will be supporting the movement in the D however I think AGDee makes a valid point and we should all be aware while we are their of how we are perceived by others

Me: It just seems like Lansing is a better target than Detroit, where the tough nerd is doing crazy things like trying to make the only non profit health insurance company in Michigan become a for profit business through legislation. I am in the area you will be occupying everyday because I work downtown. I am as liberal as any of you, I love downtown Detroit and am not sure this will be good for the city overall. Detroit, as a whole, has been the victim, more than any other city

Response: Please join us neighbor

Me: I have read article after article about this movement and cannot really grasp what the goal is. If the goal is just to let people know you are angry and frustrated with the economy, I'm not sure that disrupting the economy in a very fragile city is the way to accomplish it. And even if the goal isn't to disrupt business, you can bet I won't be fighting throngs of protestors to go out to lunch while you are occupying Woodward.

Response: There will be people with all kinds of agendas.....DISRUPTING BUSSINESS IS NOT ONE....we r not calling it off....please come down and ecperience the drmocrstic process.....c for yourself....think for yourself....decide fot yourself.....media has misrepresented truth....they wsnt uvto fear change

Me: Disrupting business, while not on the agenda, is a likely side effect. I will see it for myself, because I work in that area. I wish I understood better what the agenda is. What changes do you want to see?

Response: Lets make a deal....whatever happens will u promise to tell everyone you know what is happening with the same fervor as youvwould if it were a negative happening

Another response: then we should get some crepes (Because the Good Girls Go To Paris restaurant that I mentioned is a crepe place)

Me: You should definitely get some crepes :) If I could understand the goal of this movement, I might very well shout it to the rooftops. I just don't understand the goal.

And voila. Silence. No response whatsoever. They don't even know what they're fighting for!

LOL.

The premise of this thread is that most of us don't understand this movement. AGDee is one of the few people who could explain it.

*****

Protestors Stream Past Millionaires' NYC Homes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44857889/ns/us_news-life/

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...p.grid-6x2.jpg

People representing Occupy Wall Street and other groups hold a march on the Upper East Side of Manhattan on Tuesday to protest policies that they say favor the very rich in New York.

LOL. These protests seem to be nothing more an outcry of frustration by a very small, misguided segment of society. The general themes I've noticed with the protests is anti-corporate bailout and anti-wealthy but the banks didn't take our money, Washington GAVE them our money. They really ought to occupy Capital Hill, not some random local business in some random town.

BTW, is anyone else confused about the UAW participating in this? Do they not represent some of the beneficiaries of the corporate bailouts?

I read the account of a colleague who was in one of these Occupy (insert) last week. She considers it to be more than a small, misguided segment of society, and it is not a disorganized protest. She said people had signs protesting a range of issues including joblessness, racism, etc. They were quite excited.

I do not dismiss this as a small, misguided segment of society. I think it is a large movement that is wearing too many hats. When there are too many hats, it is difficult to understand the point being made. Perhaps there are a lot of points being made but how do we know when it is time to move on to the next step? And how do we know what the next step is? Is there something that we expect to happen before it is time to end the more overt protests and move onto the next phase?

I don't "get it" but I "get it." LOL.

I'm starting to "get it" more and more as I read more about it. It really is anger and frustration about the economy, the continued trend toward eliminating the middle class. They feel that the People have no voice because politicians (of both parties) are in the back pockets of corporations too.

I can't say I don't disagree with them. I'm not sure I agree with them 100% either. I'm not convinced they will effect change though. I share the anger and frustration about the economy. I don't know that there's a "fix" for it though. I guess I'm in a more hopeless place. These folks seem to have hope that they can effect change. I'm too cynical to believe that.

Here's a thought- I read a quote today about how much it's costing NYC to provide police to the protest areas. The number quoted was astronomical and uncited, so I'm fairly certain it's not accurate...but there's a point to that line of thought. I know in NJ the cuts to police departments have been absolutely brutal within the past few years. Occupying Trenton, for example- that's going to take up time and energy from officers who work for a force that lost almost half its strength last year. And Trenton isn't exactly crime-free, so who knows what is going on while officers are "watching" this protest? If they have to staff with additional officers this = overtime, and their budgets are probably stretched to the point of screaming already.

I'm waiting for the "occupy" movement to come here. The irony of using the tern "occupy" would become apparent if they were to protest in a neighborhood where the ratio of occupied:vacant homes is >50% (and there's many that meet that criteria!) "Wow, people are moving in now!" :D Sorry I'm a word/bad joke dork!

You're not being cynical, you're being realistic. As long as these groups protest in front of the mansions and townhomes of the rich all they are really participating in is class warfare(IMO). They really need to focus their frustrations on the politicians who allow themselves to be bought and sold by the corps, not wealthy individuals (whom many of deserve their success and wealth).

Where are the skills? I think we need a reality check in this country. The days of study whatever you want to study because the economy will make room for you and give you your dream job is over.
http://news.yahoo.com/many-u-manufac...211104184.html

I saw on the local news last night that we have about 30 hippies living in tents uptown that say they're going to be there through the DNC, which is here in Charlotte. They're having port-o-potties installed and have a shift schedule for when people can go home and change clothes and shower, etc. The only thing they DIDN'T specify is where their income is going to be coming from. Even if they're living in tents on public land, they still have to eat. And the DNC is still almost a year away.

looked thru the thread and didn't see any theories on how these protests are being funded

:http://www.discoverynews.org/2011/10...wall051821.php

be sure to order your $32 t-shirt.

My friends had a flyer for Occupy Phoenix last night. I think it's the 15th. We were arguing about what income level makes you the 1%.

I first heard about the OWS protests through the We Are the 99 Percent blog/tumblr.

I absolutely agree with this point and makes me wish that there were a more central message, so people [read: the media] wouldn't brush these people and their message off.

I read that it's $353,000 and up.

It's not as high as I'm sure many protestors think. There are different numbers quoted, but the consensus seems to be in the mid to high $300,000 range ($350,000-$380,000) a year. So a household where you have two wage earners each earning $175,000-$190,000 a year will more or less get you in. Still an incredibly commendable salary, but far from "evil corporate tycoon" status.

That's all? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.

Do you seriously not know skilled people who have lost jobs in this economy? Do you truly believe that everyone who is unemployed is just living in HPRL thinking that they are special snowflakes around whom the world revolves?

I'm not saying that there aren't some shiftless, spoiled people who are in this group because clearly, there are those people who are just pitiful. That being said, the majority of people that I have known that have lost jobs and who are struggling to find ANY job are experienced, middle-aged or older professionals that companies have let go.

There is thought in the corporate world that younger employees are simply cheaper to have on the books due to having to pay a lower salary and lower benefit costs. (It costs less to provide health insurance for a worker in his/her 20s than a worker in his/her 40s/50s.) This trend starts a chain reaction. Experienced employee loses his/her job, applies everywhere possible, loses out to younger employee in the hiring process at alternate job, and then gets even older as the job search lengthens. The companies then suffer because they lack bench strength from seasoned employees. There are things that come up in the work world that only time and experience can teach. (This would be why doctors have to intern in hospitals after graduating from medical school - theoretical knowledge only gets a person so far.)

The current economic situation is not so easily cut and dried as you purport with your comment about skills. I believe the broad spectrum of issues is why OWS is having such a difficult time getting its arms around what they're trying to accomplish. There is a wealth of skills and knowledge out there looking for work, not welfare.

I don't think this is what PiKA is talking about. I also don't think he's talking about shiftless, spoiled people. There are a lot of skilled, educated, and experienced unemployed people.

But, 99% is a whooooooooooooole lot of people, so:

The average American is under-educated, under-skilled, under-experienced, and lives paycheck-to-paycheck by chance (and in many instances by choice). This is a result of many factors including America's education system; and correlated with social class, gender, and race and ethnicity.

When people talk about this 99%, they need to understand what the average person in that 99% has on her/his resume`. Those who are well skilled, well educated, and highly experienced are the minority of that 99%. This is why people need to be realistic about the types of jobs that this 99% expect to have access to in this global economy. I think that is what PiKA2001 is saying.

************
repetitve vent/

That also speaks to how this Occupy (Someone's) Street movement has way too much going on. There are tons of submovements within this movement. People are pretending that many of those within this 99% are not responsible for some of the conditions that people are complaining about (which can be linked to why anti-capitalists like Marx's working class revolt against the capitalists never happened). For instance, if people want to complain about gender and race discrimination in the workplace, the top 1% are not the only ones to blame for that. People want to say "we're marching around the nice houses of those who make more money than we do...but we're not mad at you all, we're mad at the owners of your companies." In that case...get the hell away from my neighborhood and stalk those owners of our companies.

I just see so much irony and hypocrisy in this 99% movement. As I told my colleague who gave me a flyer for our city's "occupy," I don't mind "occupying" something but I'm not going to silently pretend that this 99% has been a united front across race, gender, social class, and other demographics and dynamics. They may prefer I stay my ass at home that week. LOL.

/repetitve vent

I agree completely. I think that's why there is a sense of "get real" frustration against many opponents of Occupy _____________ (Occupy Palo Alto just started yesterday, it's getting absurd). Silver spoon or not, to maintain a spot in the top 1% you need to have an incredible balance of experience, skills and education. Even those (athletes, celebrities, etc) who don't necessarily have the education part down clearly have some irreplaceable qualities they have worked for that adds value to their resume. So when the average member of the 99% asks, "Why not me?" the answer is pretty simple: "Because you can't do it and haven't earned it."

Now I think where the problem lies is that 99% of the population is an outrageously broad spectrum, and there is no one "reason" for the fact that they "can't do it and haven't earned it". Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they partied too hard in college (if they even made it that far), didn't take school seriously, refuse to think about long term goals, don't have the willpower or determination to develop a skill over a long period of time, are entitled, etc. Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they spent their adolescence supporting their struggling family, or because obstacle after obstacle was thrown at them due to whatever factor (poverty, race, physical disability, mental health problems, failing school system, language barriers). And then still there are those who are harder to define...those who had enough obstacles thrown at them to feel sympathy for, but still made choices that would drastically affect their ability to overcome them. Do you sympathize, chastise, or both?

There is a definite "one size fits all" viewpoint being used on either side of the issue...some denounce all those in the 99% as being stupid, lazy, unrealistic, etc. Some seem to be advocating that everybody in the 99% is a great person who just fell upon hard circumstances and therefore they have no responsibility for where they are now. The truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle. There is no "aggregate" reason for the inequality because it is going to differ so much from one person in the 99% to the next.

I think unemployed skilled people are the minority of the 99% as well. Their situations are beyond tragic, but I don't think their plight is really what these protests are about.