Occupy Wall Street

[DrPhil]

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?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 (for whatever reasons--are they also going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal?) means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc.

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is why people have more than one resume`/c.v. You market yourself based on the positions.

Why would someone give Walmart a resume` with an MBA on it for a cashier position? Save the MBA for a Walmart corporate position that requires that education level, experience, and has a much higher salary.

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.

[DrPhil]

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

What say you, GCers?

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.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

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

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

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.