Friday, February 18, 2011

First fired, first hired? Naw


In fact, there seems to be a trend—even openly stated in WANTEDs—that if you are unemployed, you need not apply. Sometimes this is a length of time you have been unemployed—THEN you have an expire date.

Being unemployed does not put you in a protected class, though—like being a minority, disabled, or old.

Congress even became concerned and asked the Labor Dept if this were illegal. The answer was only if those being discriminated against for not being employed also fit into another class.

Blacks and Hispanics, for instance, are less likely to still be working, so saying you have to be working discriminates against them—voila, a bad thing.

They are going to look into it—hearings or something.

Hey, this is just plain cruel—people who have been out of work a long time need money more than other people!

Also, women who aren’t working because they are at-home moms or taking care of relatives also would be ruled out.

This sucks. Simple enough for ya?

2 comments:

srdem65 said...

The bias against the long-term unemployed is puzzling; what do prospective employers assume would preclude these people from becoming good employees? There must be some social stigma to being laid-off from your prior job as if the employee was 'unfit' or 'lazy'.
The assumption is that losing your job isn't a personal judgement on performance, but a financial adjustment by the employer.
IMO, anyway.

Star Lawrence said...

I agree--it seemed to me it was widely publicized (!!) that companies were laying off through no fault of the employees...Now a stigma has gradually accrued that these people are welfare cheats or something...very sad.