• Comment (12)

Obama’s Jobs Plan Will Guarantee Full Employment--For Lawyers

September 27, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Anyone familiar with the full text of President Barack Obama's American Jobs Act will understand why he is in such a hurry for Congress to pass it. He doesn't want anyone to read it first.

We've been down this road before and, heaven help us, the president wants to take us down this road yet again. The bill is full of things that would give a reasonable person pause. One of them is the section identified as the "Fair Employment Act of 2011" which establishes a "prohibition on discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual's status as unemployed."

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

It's true that long-term unemployment is a serious issue right now, more serious than at any time since the end of the Second World War according to more than one labor economist. But what Obama is proposing will make it harder for the long-term unemployed to find work because, in essence, he is saying it should be actionable should a business decide not to hire them. If ever there was a disincentive to hire someone who doesn't have a job, this might be it.

The way things work now, thanks to the trial bar and their friends on the federal bench, making an accusation of discrimination is practically the same as proving it. No business owner, no corporate leader, no person involved in the hiring process wants to find themselves on the wrong end of an allegation that they or their company discriminated in its hiring practices. It is an embarrassing and costly charge, one that often gets more attention when it is made than when it is resolved in an employer's favor. And, no matter what the U.S. Constitution and our judicial system may say about "innocent until proven guilty," it is almost always incumbent on the accused to prove, one way or another, that they didn't discriminate, or to settle out of court for what is usually called "unspecified damages with no admission of wrong doing."

[See the top 10 cities to find a job.]

Under what Obama's is asking for in his bill it shall be a prohibited act "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." Which opens the door for all the Acorn-like groups out there to send long-term unemployed people into businesses big and small—especially those the liberals don't like because of their political activity, because they are non-union, or because of the business they are in—to apply for jobs and, when they don't get them, to allege the decision not to hire was based on discrimination. And, of course, the legislation includes a provision awarding "reasonable attorney's fees (including expert fees) and costs attributable to the pursuit of a claim under this Act" in the event that discrimination should be found to have occurred.

President Barack Obama has hit on a scheme to guarantee full employment in his American Jobs Act all right—full employment for the trial layers. The rest of those who don't have jobs will just have to wait a while longer.

Tags:
discrimination,
employment,
economy,
Obama administration,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

If these people don't have jobs and haven't had jobs for a long time i'm pretty sure they don't have much money. Last time i checked suing someone is a very expensive endeavor. So it would seem logical that if this bill is passed and people do sue employers for discrimination than it would be safe to assume that they fell pretty strongly about their convictions to take time away from their job search and spend money on a process that is totally subjective.... Peter Roff obviously is an idiot to waste not only his time but everyone elses time that happened to stumble across this ignorant and common sense lacking article. lol not everyone has money to piss on suing others Mr. Roff. Stop using your influence and voice to side track the move for economic equality in our great country. No matter what your political preference is. No matter how you feel about any of the programs our country offers this bill isn't about that. Its about investing in other forms of energies which is extremely important(or should be) considering the fact that oil resources are limited and within the next hundred years will be vastly depleted. This bill will start projects to improve our countries infrastructure. It will improve schools and start the process of getting our academics back on track. All these things means JOBS and these jobs will insure that hundreds of thousands of Americans can put food on their tables to feed their children. This bill means that hundreds of thousands of Americans will be able to heat there homes for the winter. I know some of you say these jobs aren't permanent but that means that you are ignorant to the issue and what its addressing. This bill is targeting giving work to construction workers, engineering, architects, and electricians. These people work from job to job. None of their jobs last forever and if they did they'd be really poor at their job. This bill is providing much needed relief for the types of Americans that are the very back bone of our country. Long story short this is a good bill and all of the hang ups people might have about it are out weighed by the duty we have to ensuring American citizens(no one no mater what country they live in) don't starve to death while there is a viable solution is obtainable.

"A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people." -Mohandas Gandhi

Let us not continue to let economic inquality be apart of our culture. Let love and equality envade our hearts and souls in attempt to enrich the American culture.

https://www.change.org/petitions/pass-the-american-jobs-act-and-put-americans-back-to-work-asap

Joseph Paylor of TX 1:05PM October 01, 2011

Haberdashery of ID_ Insulter, yeah you're union. Hit a TEA mrmber today ?? Still talking union...

Sound like a union man. Well union numbers keep FALLING. A WHOLE LOT of people disagree with you.

Bill Hedges of MO 10:59AM September 29, 2011

Bill Hedges of Mo:

S'matter with you?? Wife smack you cross-eyed??? I'm hiding nothing between the lines regarding my comment, so where the h--- do you get off stating, "...Sound like a union man"??? Additionally, anyone who would agree or disagree with me does not apply here! "Reality only" applies here!

Fact is, I do not care for labor unions for a multitude of reasons .....far too many to list.

In fact, have a gander at The State of Missouri's, "employee at will" law:

"The general rule in Missouri is that unless you have a contract for a specified duration, you are considered to be an employee-at-will. That means that your employer can fire you for any reason, as long as the reason is not illegal, and cannot be held liable for wrongful discharge. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, your employer can fire you at any time even if your performance has been exemplary and even if your employer has not given you any prior warnings. In addition, your employer is not required to give you any notice before firing you. As an at-will employee, you are free to quit your employment at any time and are not required to give your employer any notice before you quit".

http://dobsongoldberg.com/EmploymentLawFAQ.html

...here's another:

Almost every day I receive a phone call from a person who has been fired and who wants to sue the employer who did it. Often these callers talk about “wrongful termination” and almost always these people think they have some kind of generalized legal protection against being fired unjustly. Unfortunately, these people are wrong. In Kansas and Missouri, and in almost every other state in the Union, the law is employment at will. That means that an employer can fire any employee at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

http://www.kclabor.org/wrongful%20termination.htm

Tell your wife to either stop picking on you

....or lay off the booze, eh?!?!?

Haberdashery of ID 8:03PM September 28, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement