Worker Activists Deliver Petitions Against Jobless Discrimination To Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON -- Labor advocates delivered 250,000 petitions in support of an initiative to ban hiring discrimination against the jobless on Wednesday, handing them off to congressional Democrats in front of the Capitol.

Progressive activist groups National Employment Law Project, USAction, Change.org, ColorofChange.org and CREDO Action, presented the signatures to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the original co-sponsors of bills that would outlaw the practice of making current employment a necessary prerequisite for job applicants (but wouldn't make employment status a protected class like age, religion or sex).

NELP, a worker advocacy group, has been documenting online job ads that say only applicants who are currently employed will be reviewed, a barrier to employment for the 14 million currently unemployed Americans.

This type of language affects recent college graduates, older Americans and minorities disproportionally, Democrats say, because those demographics all have higher overall unemployment rates.

"People want to work, we should not throw another stumping block in their way," DeLauro said. "That's what this legislation is about."

DeLauro said although there is no bipartisan support at this time, they're hopeful legislative action will take place now that their original bill has become part of President Obama's $450 billion jobs package.

The members of Congress praised President Obama for supporting their legislation, but worried Republicans may use this a "convenient excuse" to hold back support for their bills to stop discriminating against the jobless.

Already, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the House floor to speak out against the idea as just creating another "protected class."

Johnson said much of Republican objection is politically motivated.

"[Some Republicans] don't want to see the president be successful." He added the American people "are looking past the cynicism and they're looking at their pocket books. ... They want some action."

DeLauro said she would be pressing the Republican majority to hold hearings on the issue in the coming weeks in the House Education and Workforce Committee.

While Indeed.com, the largest job board website, agreed to no longer allow postings that discriminate against the unemployed, CareerBuilder has continued to allow job ads with such language go up.

When asked whether Republicans would oppose it as another government regulation, the Democrats shot back, arguing it was not a regulation. There would be no government inspectors going around, and it would cost no money to implement, they said.

So far, DeLauro said 43 Democrats have cosponsored their bill in the House. She equated this practice to signs from a century ago that would've stipulated Irish, Italians, blacks, or other classes of people need not apply. "There's no reason it shouldn't be bipartisan."

Comments

[Dahveed1]

10:56 PM on 09/27/2011

I'm for ending jobless discrimination. Its wrong and it should be stopped. Its hard to enforce it, but at least making it illegal will prevent companies from blantly discriminating from the unemployed.

[olerealist]

05:12 PM on 09/22/2011

This is to further my comment regarding the radical anti labor article in the W. Examiner, 9/18/11 by columnist Michael Barone.

After his tirade vs. state employee unions Barone took off on a theme of how the U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY bankruptcy proceedings discriminated against bondholders. This needs some fact checking.

GENERAL MOTERS bankruptcy:
The Guardian business paper June 1, 2009; Andrew Clark Over the weekend, 54% of these bondholders indicated that they were willing to accept an improved deal under which they could eventually get up to 25% of GM (sic in common stock)

By Peter WhoriskeyWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
“The U.S. Treasury owns 60.8 percent of the new company's common stock, the UAW retiree health trust has 17.5 percent “ (UAW released the Co. from its liability)

During the economic crisis that followed, the union became a part owner of both companies (G.M. Chrysler) in return for steep concessions, including a pledge NOT TO STRIKE over compensation for five years.

In May 2009, G.M. announced that it had reached a deal with the U.A.W., as required by the government. Under the restructuring plan, the union took over the LIABILITIES for its retiree health care fund; in return, it received a 17.5 percent stake in the new G.M. and warrants to buy an additional 2.5 percent.

[jimtodd]

03:39 PM on 09/22/2011

Situations change. After many years and much hardship, people change as well.

[olerealist]

10:19 AM on 09/23/2011

BASH THE WAGE EARNERS Columnist pundit

Albeit infrequently we venture to peruse the Washington Examiner if only to find out what the millionaire worshipers are up to.

Prominent in the current issue is an article by Michael Barone one of the more prominent reactionary mouthpieces. The caption is “- O’bama Acts As Shopsteward In Chief”

Barone is Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor, a regular Townhall.com contributor in association with Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and folks of like persuasion; and a recent Guest on the Fox Sean Hannity Show. In other words, he makes his living being an extreme right fringe guy.
Typical is the article featured in the Examiner of 9/18, 2011. Barone is outraged by the fact that the 2009 federal stimulus was granted to States who were in fiscal crisis because of the mandatory requirement to balance state budgets annually. This would have created a need to lay off perhaps a million teachers, firemen and police officers.
As is well known many of those employees were union members. And why not? Can you imagine the vacuum of bargaining power if a sole worker faced a wage bargaining session with the huge resources of state government unassisted? Is it bizarre that the Administration recognized the need to prevent layoffs in this most critical employment area?

More of Barone’s labor and worker bashing assertions will be addressed in my next comment.

[CaptainRenault]

02:37 PM on 09/22/2011

Just as a point of fact, I presume that there are 250,000 signatures on petitions, not actually 250,000 petitions that were presented.

Also, while this effort is focused on discrimination against those who are unemployed at all, it does not address those who are long-term unemployed or older workers who are even more aggressively discriminated against than those who recently got laid off. The whole spectrum of hiring discrimination needs to be addressed.

I am convinced that one of the reasons we hear of a so-called "skills gap" in the workforce is not b/c peple actually lack the skills or the wherewithall to readily acquire them, but that HR departments discriminate against longer-term u/e workers by ASSUMING that their skills are out of date or stale. This is a stupid assumption when there is a 9.1% rate, which is really more like 16+%. With over 15 million unemployed, are they really mostly useless and unskilled??

I don't thi-n-nk soo!

The problems is the litmus tests that HR departments are using to wash out candiates from consideration by using resumes scanning software and automated methods to cull the herd. It makes their jobs easier, but does little to effectively get the best candidates into the hiring pool.

Let your reps in Washington and your state know. This is a big problem for getting people back to work.

^ ^

[MiddleMolly]

04:07 PM on 09/22/2011

Of course you are right, and I do support this petition even though it may not be inclusive. It's a start. But the big issue right now is that there aren't enough jobs. That's why all of this picking and choosing has become an issue.

[CaptainRenault]

05:09 PM on 09/22/2011

Yes, I support it also, but I don't want the related issues to get lost in the kerfuffle.

Agreed about the jobs, and I think that both parties have not done enough to develop policies that promote job growth--both in terms of private sector jobs and jobs that are funded by government projects like infrastructure repair.

These various issues about jobs and employment are not mutually exclusive, i.e., they can be worked on together as part of a comprehensive program to get things moving. I recognize that in terms of politics, that it is important to "stay on message", but I do think that if the issues are laid out, sort of in bullet point style, then the electorate smart enough to "get it". Let's hope that the good guys in Washington succeed in getting this message across.

Cheers.

^ ^

[KWiedemer]

05:18 PM on 09/25/2011

Kelly Wiedemer
I've been saying this for awhile now: the 99ers are largely made up of 'older workers' - ages 45-50+ and that there is some inherent age discrimina­tion that goes hand in hand with discrimina­ting against unemployed job applicants­.

On another note: there are far more than 2 million 99ers. There 'official' ogvernment numbers have 'majically­' stayed at 2 million for many, many months..j.­ust one more in the long list of government lies about the unemployme­nt conditions in the United States - lies that are contributi­ng to a permanent state of poverty and homelessne­ss.for millions of once hard working, successful­, middle class American workers.

Denver Unemployme­nt Examiner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/unemployment-older-worker_n_978088.html

[CaptainRenault]

05:08 PM on 09/26/2011

Yes, Kelly, I think you make a very cogent observation here. -- Last year in March, Goldman Sachs Analytics estimated that, starting in June 2010, that "99-ers" would be added to those who exhasted their UI benefits at a rate of 400,000 per month and trending up. Given the slow rate at which this group is reassimilated into the workforce (i.e., by finding employment), it is likely that the number exceeds 4 million people.

This is a national disgrace and it is a sad statement on American politics and the business climate darkened by pessimistic employers and I find it simply appalling that, when those of us in this situation were crying out for action over a year ago, that the plight of the long-term unemployed is only now getting the attention of government where actual programs are being considered. I rememeber all too well last October and November that the Congressional leadership and the White House threw the 99ers under the bus while cutting deals in which tax cuts for the wealthy were extended.

A pox on all their houses!

^ ^

[Gidster]

02:36 PM on 09/22/2011

Workers...A "Protected class"...Not like your poor Millionaires eh Mr. Gohmert?

Your constant haranguing that unemployed workers are just lazy, while you advocate against jobs bills is the pinnacle of hypocrisy!

[So silly]

02:35 PM on 09/22/2011

Ugh. Why even waste time on this? Everyone knows you can pass any law you want but that doesn't matter unless it is enforced and it would be practically impossible to enforce this type of law.

I personally am unemployed and I am aware that that the longer you are unemployed the tougher it gets to find a job. That being said I would prefer Congress waste my time bickering over other things. I have seen resumes tossed in the trash or simply hit delete on the email for many other reasons that are protected by law. Why waste time on this?

[MiddleMolly]

04:10 PM on 09/22/2011

I agree that it would be hard to enforce in practice. Companies merely need to get rid of the phrase in their ads "Unemployed need not apply". That doesn't mean that they can't filter those with recent gaps in employment on their resumes right into the garbage. But I support this. It's very disheartening for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own to see this phrase when they look for work.

[JohnQpublic81]

02:18 PM on 09/22/2011

Rep. Louie Gohmert, one of the most disgusting humans being on earth.

[Patriot Games]

02:04 PM on 09/22/2011

What are you doing with the $3100 dollars WalMart supposedly saves you a year. Spend it to find a new job?

[Patriot Games]

01:59 PM on 09/22/2011

In India people are employed in manual labor positions just because of the sheer volume of people. In effect slave labor without any recourse for safety, pay, or conditions. This is where US corporations want to take us. Be happy you have a job they tell us, while we make their millions and billions.

[Gidster]

02:37 PM on 09/22/2011

Exactly!

A return to work houses and Robber Barons...

They have been working towards this goal since the Depression that policy caused.

[MiddleMolly]

04:47 PM on 09/22/2011

Yep. I wish I could remember the exact comment, but it was one of those comments to which I couldn't even reply: The person claimed that, because I was writing in serious concern for the well-being of workers in China who make peanuts, that I therefore didn't care about those workers. Because if the corporations paying these people slave wages had to pay them more, they would close up shop, thus causing the slave wage earners more serious hardship because they would then be unemployed. It followed the same thinking of pro-slavery people in the ante-bellum South: They would have nothing if they were free. The Chinese, working for a buck an hour, would have nothing if these companies closed up and went elsewhere.

Only a worldwide worker's movement can prevent this rush to the bottom.

[Patriot Games]

01:54 PM on 09/22/2011

Already, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the House floor to speak out against the idea as just creating another "protected class."

Gohmert Pile is the stupidest person in congress. Sorry Louie that includes the men and women. Good news for you Michelle, you are not alone.

[Gidster]

02:38 PM on 09/22/2011

Virginia Foxx is right up there....

It seems that you must abandon critical thinking to become a Republican candidate for anything!

[Jonathan Jeffer]

01:53 PM on 09/22/2011

Well, we all know that the unemployed are lazy, so it makes sense that businesses should be allowed to never hire them...

[Gidster]

02:38 PM on 09/22/2011

That proooves it!

:)

[Judy Rauch]

01:30 PM on 09/22/2011

This problem has been coming on for years with our jobs and all create by the so called job providers with all of our help. Started with gas stations you pulled in one and a man or boy pumped your gas and washed your windows etc. Had a flat tire they fixed it now you have to go to a place that will only sell you a complete set for one bad tire. Now stations you do your own pumping and head nside to a mini mart but your 6 pack and a Lotto ticket. Is gas cheaper doing your own work no and how many people lost jobs. Look at the card shops all cause you can send an e-mail card without any thought. You put all your personnal ID on the computer cause mailing is a hassle so goes all our postal workers. Now you go to the grocery and what do it your self check out lanes. Is your groceries cheaper I think not but use those lanes and another checker losses her job. Some call this progress well remeber that when you lose your jobs. All creations of our so called employers that hate paying a living wage but want you to shop at their store. I could go on and on where our jobs have gone but you get my point and we have allowed all of this.

[MiddleMolly]

02:41 PM on 09/22/2011

The problem is the workers haven't benefited from all of this automation and use of the Internet. I remember thinking, when I was much younger, that, with all of the automation in the offing, we'd only need to work 30 or so hours a week for the same amount of pay because we'd have so much less work to divvy up. Of course, the savings in productivity did not go to the middle or working classes; they went up to the top. Less work over all to make the same product; less labor needed; more profits for the guys at the top; lower wages and jobs for the rest of us.

[demilieu]

01:26 PM on 09/22/2011

One day, employers will need my sorry butt. At that time descrimination will end! It's all about supply and demand. 14 million people sending out resumes while the rest of the economy is working at full capacity with the highest worker productivity in documented US history. If you're an employer, what's not to like about this situation? "Sorry, we're looking somone with TWO vintage Guns and Roses tattoos, not 1."

[Gidster]

02:40 PM on 09/22/2011

Highest production with 40% fewer workers. Often at lower wages and less benefits....That's exploitation.

And there is no incentive to hire anyone.

[demilieu]

01:20 PM on 09/22/2011

Effectively an impossible law to enforce. But a least the matter is now being addressed in a public forum, which may raise awareness and help change things.

[zachmillsdood]

01:12 PM on 09/22/2011

This is a great piece of legislation. Hope to see this one go through.