Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama Pressuring Businesses Not to “Discriminate” Against Long-Term Jobless
Ayn Rand wrote that the “only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.”
President Obama is doing the exact opposite. With his “I have a pen” promise (aka despotism), he is pushing businesses to sign a White House pledge not to “discriminate” against hiring the long-term unemployed.
So, now we have a new classification of discrimination: Joblessness. How long will it be until “joblessness” is equated with gender and race in our anti-discrimination laws?
And what will come next? “Uneducated” discrimination? Businesses will have to pledge to hire people even if they don’t have the necessary education for the position. How about “inexperienced” discrimination? Businesses will have to pledge to hire people even if they don’t have the proper experience to actually do the job they’re being hired to do?
How far down the slippery slope of discrimination are we going to have to go before the government tells businesses exactly who they can and cannot hire? I’d say with the President’s pledge, we’re getting pretty close.
According to the White House, the initiative to solve the problem of “jobless discrimination” is designed to “help the economy, without the cooperation of an often dysfunctional Congress.”
Arthur Delaney, at the Huffington Post, writes that the number of long-term jobless—at nearly 4 million—is historically unprecedented, and that “recent studies have shown that part of the problem is companies not wanting to hire people with gaps in their resumes.”
No mention is made, of course, that big government and Obamacare are part of the problem. True to form, our president hones in on business as the primary stumbling block. Instead of shrinking government and setting the markets free, he doubles down on companies, reducing liberty while increasing presidential power.
“It really is sad to hear the stories of people who almost had a job at three months, almost had a job at five months, and then suddenly they’re unemployed seven or eight months and they can’t even get an interview,” White House economic adviser Gene Sperling told HuffPost on Thursday.
“Often inadvertently, companies put up screens or have built-in stigmas in their hiring practices that create a negative cycle for the long-term unemployed,” Sperling said.
In 2011, as part of the American Jobs Act, “Obama proposed banning job ads that discourage the unemployed and giving spurned job-seekers a way to file claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” That proposal was shot down by Republicans in the House.
Now, Obama is trying to do the same thing in a roundabout way by pressuring companies to sign a “best practices” pledge regarding hiring those who have been out of work for a long time. More than 300 companies have already signed, including 21 of the 50 largest U.S. businesses by sales. Walmart and McDonald’s are among those who have made the pledge.
The White House is promoting the “best practices” promise as way to make America more prosperous:
Businesses succeed when their communities thrive. We recognize the benefits to our businesses, our economy, and our country of taking advantage of the talent, experience and skills of all Americans, including the long-term unemployed. Yet studies have shown that long-term unemployed job applicants are frequently overlooked and sometimes excluded from job opportunities—even when they may have identical resumes and skills to other candidates.
First of all, no two people have “identical resumes and skills.” Second, I can’t remember a time when it wasn’t accepted practice (if not a “best practice” in and of itself) that businesses preferred hiring people already employed.
I remember wanting to leave my job when I was in my twenties, but my father told me quite firmly not to quit until I had another job lined up—no one wants to hire you if you’re out of work. That has always been a reality in the job market—not just in America, but in other countries as well.
Now, something that has always been part of the competitive process has been deemed by the President to be “discriminatory.”
As Ayn Rand said, when the government gets involved in dictating “best practices” to businesses, you no longer have freedom and prosperity, you have tyranny.
When are people going to stand up to this President and say enough is enough? He has stated that he has a “pen” and that he is willing use it. In a very real sense, the pen is mightier than the sword, and that is exactly how Obama is wielding it.
Published in General
This is interesting. I think the problems the unemployed will have are Obama’s minimum wage increase, and now the Republicans– rather than the Democrats’– upcoming immigration push. Relatively highly-skilled workers really aren’t going to get jobs at McDonlads. Even if they wanted to. The last thing McDonalds wants is to train someone and suffer productivity loss and then never make even on the hire cause the hire finally got that job at a bank. I’ve seen some interesting people who’ve wound up in construction and in claims adjusting though. I think for some of the younger unemployed, those just out of high-school and college with very little experience– I think they are better candidates for the “jobs Americans won’t do” than the experienced, long term unemployed.
@29,
+1. Smack dab on target. Obama is not dumb and he is clearly trolling the waters for one of his political opponents to come out against a voluntary initiative to help those poor, unemployed through no fault of their own, people. Icing on the cake would be if they quoted Ayn Rand while they were at it.
The document was written to be a stage prop–and doubtless pitched to the signatories as a stage prop. No one, anywhere, will get a job as a result of this. And nobody in the White House expects anyone to.
That we–a forum that is sometimes characterized as the brightest lights on the right–are huffing and puffing over this charade, as opposed to, say, IRS and Justice Department oppression of Obama’s political opponents–would seem to indicate that this bit of political theater was successful.
Can we not be annoyed with all these outrages simultaneously? I do not see why we need to limit our indignation.
Yes stage prop it may be but certainly it is wise to be concerned about a potential precedent being set.
And the question becomes what is it about people who’ve been out of work six months that makes them less desirable than those who don’t even have relevant experience? Is it the sorting costs HR faces in an avalanche of resumes? Is it the perception 6mos=damaged goods?
·31 minutes ago
Sorry to read about the work situation, but glad some employment was found. Reading situations like that makes me think many commentators do need to avoid making it seem like out of work Americans are lazy. Because the market is tougher than many people imagine right now.
I don’t have an answer as to what makes “long term unemployed” the worse position for the purposes of a job application. It may be that employers are mentally sorting “no one else has hired X so why me? Why was X let go in the first place?” Also, long term unemployed may be less successful in interviews and in selling themselves— even if two people both worked at Acme, and both have BAs in business they are not the same people, also, the time between jobs may make it harder to write convincing letters of recommendations.
The signatories: big companies that are vulnerable to criticism from the media allies of the president; and big government contractors who aren’t stupid…..The document was written to be a stage prop–and doubtless pitched to the signatories as a stage prop. No one, anywhere, will get a job as a result of this. And nobody in the White House expects anyone to.
That we–a forum that is sometimes characterized as the brightest lights on the right–are huffing and puffing over this charade, as opposed to, say, IRS and Justice Department oppression of Obama’s political opponents–would seem to indicate that this bit of political theater was successful.
First, I’m not huffing and puffing over something inconsequential. Words mean things. Actions, even when they don’t have legal bite, mean something, especially when it comes to cronyism and wielding power. There are steps toward tyranny, and this is one of them. To pooh pooh it is downright foolish.
Second, I take what the Justice Department has done very seriously and have written about it elsewhere. It all matters!
+1. Smack dab on target. Obama is not dumb and he is clearly trolling the waters for one of his political opponents to come out against a voluntary initiative to help those poor, unemployed through no fault of their own, people. Icing on the cake would be if they quoted Ayn Rand while they were at it. ·2 hours ago
He’s obviously trolling, but he’s also maneuvering. This is exactly the time to confront him on misuse of power (even when it is symbolic). This is all part of the propaganda war and just to look at it and laugh and say it’s meaningless is not to understand manipulation and propaganda. You fight it with the truth, with force of your own, or with propaganda of your own. We are doing none of these.
I’m sorry, but I think behavior like this from our president is serious. Everything else that’s going on is serious as well, but when companies bow to power even symbolically, we have a major problem. If you don’t think so, that’s fine. But I certainly do, I’ll keep speaking out against it.
This is the thing. If you hand over your freedom to a despot even in small things, even in a “pledge,” you are opening yourself up to even great loss. Plus, you’re giving the statist’s fuel in the propaganda war. I know you see it, RushBabe, I just don’t understanding why others don’t.
The document was written to be a stage prop–and doubtless pitched to the signatories as a stage prop. No one, anywhere, will get a job as a result of this. And nobody in the White House expects anyone to.
That we–a forum that is sometimes characterized as the brightest lights on the right–are huffing and puffing over this charade, as opposed to, say, IRS and Justice Department oppression of Obama’s political opponents–would seem to indicate that this bit of political theater was successful.
Can we not be annoyed with all these outrages simultaneously? I do not see why we need to limit our indignation.
Yes stage prop it may be but certainly it is wise to be concerned about a potential precedent being set. ·1 hour ago
Agreed!!!
@39,
By all means, rage on. Just don’t expect any minimally conservative politician with a dime’s worth of self preservation to commit ritual seppuku over this two-bit display of political theater.
As for those companies who signed on: they just want to sell their stuff. If it means genuflecting before the powers that be, they’ll do it. From what I’ve seen most big companies tend to cover down on both sides of the aisle. It’s the smart thing to do.
There’s nothing new under the sun: Adam Smith noted the tendency of “capitalists” to collude to fix prices, gain political favor, etc. in “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776. Anytime the State starts peddling indulgences, companies happily fill the coffers. Johann Tetzel would be proud.
It is often difficult enough to get a corporate HR department to respond effectively to a need to fill a vacancy. Imagine how that will be improved if they also have to worry about justifying the applicant pool they consider; x% of interviews must go to candidates who meet the new longterm unemployed category — in addition to whatever other categories they already worry about to avoid lawsuits. A National Bureau of Labor Utilization could no doubt process everyone’s personnel requisitions (through a website) and provide an applicant pool which would provide a safe harbor, but the paperwork justifying the rejection of any candidate might be burdensome.
Edit for unexplainable discrepencies that I swear were not there before I hit post. Not a pinky-swear, though.
Hi FloppyDisk90. When companies feel it necessary to “genuflect to the powers that be” it is a sure sign that the powers that be are too damn powerful and not shy about about using it to your detriment.
As so eloquently stated by Maggie Thatcher: the left would rather the poor be poorer than one person be richer. The particular pathology which afflicts the left prefers the sound of a ‘community’ singing kumbaya in unison over the sound of a symphony of cash registers reporting the sound of profits.
When your entire world view depends on everyone in society living at the same level, in the same manner, thinking the same thoughts, an individual making their own choices, which capitalism enables, simply cannot be tolerated. This is the nature of our struggle.
I couldn’t agree more. The solution is to limit the power, not cluck our tongues at businesses that are simply engaging in wholly rational rent seeking.
By all means, rage on. Just don’t expect any minimally conservative politician with a dime’s worth of self preservation to commit ritual seppuku over this two-bit display of political theater.
As for those companies who signed on: they just want to sell their stuff. If it means genuflecting before the powers that be, they’ll do it. From what I’ve seen most big companies tend to cover down on both sides of the aisle. It’s the smart thing to do. ·1 hour ago
well, this is certainly true. They don’t do anything about any scandal, political theatrics or otherwise.
I couldn’t agree more. The solution is to limit the power, not cluck our tongues at businesses that are simply engaging in wholly rational rent seeking. ·6 minutes ago
I’m less upset with the businesses (because I understand why they’re doing it) than I am with the president–and with politicians on our side who say nothing about it.
I couldn’t agree more. The solution is to limit the power, not cluck our tongues at businesses that are simply engaging in wholly rational rent seeking. ·6 minutes ago
I’m less upset with the businesses (because I understand why they’re doing it) than I am with the president–and with politicians on our side who say nothing about it. ·38 minutes ago
I’m upset with my fellow citizens who are dumb enough to think this is an actual move to help the unemployed- rather than recognizing an empty, cynical gesture when they see one.
DocJay— Ayn Rand isn’t quite my model when it comes to morality, but when it comes to capitalism, she’s my hero.
Reading situations like that [long-term unemployment] makes me think many commentators do need to avoid making it seem like out of work Americans are lazy. Because the market is tougher than many people imagine right now.
I’ve noticed the “lazy” assumption also. Which is ironic, given the my husband is harder working than the rest of the family put together.
If we want to reach this group, we need to be tailoring messages to those who lost jobs in manufacturing, those who were in skilled and unskilled labor–and have some idea besides extending unemployment assistance or blaming the rich.
On a different note, I tended to view President Obama’s “agreement” as pure theater, but DC is bringing me around. To an administration who governs by ends justifying the means, even an unenforceable agreement can take on an ominous tone.
Megan McArdle’s written a lot on the topic, including her own experience here. Like you said, the data’s pretty convincing – being unemployed long-term appears to be a factor in itself, not just a result.
I agree, Goldgeller. Many of you know my husband was out of work for close to three years. I made enough money for us to live frugally on, so once it was clear this was going to be a long process, we had to consider jobs that worked in a complex rubric that accounted for costs of after-school care and possibly replacing our car that is on, what I affectionately refer to as “supportive/palliative care.”
Currently, he’s working part-time as a wine consultant in a grocery store that is 10 minutes from our house, and schedules around our child-care demands. In other words, we found the part-time job that works right now and maximizes the costs associated with working.
Companies have to do the same balancing act. Thus, while my husband definitely wants to return to full-time work, his skills need to fit the company’s complex rubric of needs.
Turns out Obama isn’t an expert on either end of the equation.
One other thing. Unlike disparate impact statistics, there has been some well-done research on the impact of long-term (over 6 months) unemployment from the perspective of how a resume is viewed. The study randomized resumes received by relevant experience and length of unemployment.
The solutions suggested in this Atlantic article are just what you’d expect, but his summary is quite accurate:
And the question becomes what is it about people who’ve been out of work six months that makes them less desirable than those who don’t even have relevant experience? Is it the sorting costs HR faces in an avalanche of resumes? Is it the perception 6mos=damaged goods?
I’m pretty sure a pledge isn’t a solution.
Shame on those big companies for handing over their liberty so easily. They will probably regret it, if there are any effects at all.
Obama’s jobs creation sophistication is on a par with the schoolhouse game of Musical Chairs.
There’s not enough chairs to go around, so instead of making more chairs or going and getting more chairs, Obama thinks the solution is for him to tell the teacher when to stop the music, so that the “right” people get the few available chairs.