President Obama’s jobs bill is under scrutiny, and one particular section has raised the eyebrows and ire of more than a few. Business groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, are calling it unnecessary, and others say it opens the door to a landslide of lawsuits. What has people so upset with this one particular proposal?
A provision in the jobs bill bans employment ads that specify “Jobless need not apply.” The president said recently that such discrimination makes “absolutely no sense.” He is not alone in this thinking, as lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced similar bills addressing the current trend in such ads.
Not all are in agreement, though. Louie Gohmert, a Republican Texas representative, thinks the proposal is redundant. He says “If you’re unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you were unemployed.”
That makes sense, doesn’t it? Lawrence Lorber, a labor law specialist thinks so. He also believes the proposal in Obama’s jobs bill “opens another avenue of employment litigation and nuisance lawsuits.” Just what the judicial system needs-more nuisance lawsuits, and you can bet there would be a flood of them.
However, it certainly does seem counter-productive to deny consideration to the unemployed. Contrary to what some may think, not all of the jobless have stopped looking for employment in favor of looking for the mailman to deliver the check. Many with skills, experience, and drive would be happy to re-join the workforce in this country. It isn’t smart for employers to disqualify a potential asset from consideration because of circumstances beyond their control.
Yahoo! News reports that New Jersey banned the ads, but not to the extent that Obama’s jobs bill would. Nothing in New Jersey’s bill suggests workers sue for discrimination. Maybe that’s because there are enough lawyers in New Jersey to handle the frivolous lawsuits.