PDA

View Full Version : Common sense...not for Republicans though



Qtec
09-15-2011, 03:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is no fan of a proposal for the federal government to forbid employers from discriminating against the jobless based on their employment status.

"We're adding in this bill a new protected class called 'unemployed,'" Gohmert said on the floor of the House Tuesday. "I think this will help trial lawyers who are not having enough work. We heard from our friends across the aisle, 14 million people out of work -- that's 14 million new clients."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The American Jobs Act, submitted by President Obama to Congress this week, <u>has a section that would prohibit employers from not hiring someone just because they are jobless.</u></span>

According to the National Employment Law Project, Gohmert is incorrect: The proposal would not make employment status a protected class like race or sex. <u>It simply bans hiring discrimination against the jobless,</u> and is modeled off of legislation drafted by Democrats in Congress earlier this year.

As The Huffington Post has documented, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>employers are routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads. </u>As unemployment remains stagnant and 14 million Americans are out of work, this sort of discrimination pushes back against those who are desperately trying to get back in the workforce.</span>

Some major job board websites have conceded to pressure from activists and agreed to stop running job ads that include discrimination against the unemployed.

Republican leadership has not weighed in on whether they would support the provision, but Gohmert made a point to criticize it. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/republican-blasts-jobs-act-for-banning-unemployment-discrimination_n_963021.html)

Lets not hear the BS claim , 'the unemployed don't want to work', any more.

Q

LWW
09-15-2011, 03:26 AM
If this bill is so critical ... why did it take 32 months for it to become so critical?

Qtec
09-15-2011, 03:56 AM
No comment then? Just another off topic diversion. Scared to comment on the thread?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The American Jobs Act, submitted by President Obama to Congress this week,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> has a section that would prohibit employers from not hiring someone just because they are jobless.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">employers are <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads.</span></u> As unemployment remains stagnant and 14 million Americans are out of work, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this sort of<span style='font-size: 17pt'> discrimination </span>pushes back against those who are desperately trying to get back in the workforce. </span></div></div>

How do you expect the unemployment numbers to come down if the unemployed are exempted from applying for jobs?


Obama does something about this injustice and the GOP still complain!!!!!!!!


Q

LWW
09-15-2011, 04:00 AM
Why don't you just answer the question?

Qtec
09-15-2011, 04:15 AM
This is a no brainer. We are in the NOW. Why would anyone be against this?

Q

LWW
09-15-2011, 04:19 AM
Because they haven't actually seen it.

Now ... why don't you answer the question, or do you wish to stick with your last diffuse reply which indicates that deep down you realize that dear leader has been incompetent.

Qtec
09-15-2011, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because they haven't actually seen it.

</div></div>

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?_r=2)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The unemployed need not apply.

That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off. </div></div>

Now they have seen it, they still don't care.

Q

LWW
09-15-2011, 04:44 AM
Employers should be free to hire the most qualified candidate.

Someone who has been unemployed for over 6 months will almost never be as qualified as someone who has remained in the work force.

Next deflection?

Qtec
09-15-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Employers should be free to hire the most qualified candidate.

Someone who has been unemployed for over 6 months will almost never be as qualified as someone who has remained in the work force.

Next deflection? </div></div>


BS Any proof of that?

Eh.....No.

Q

LWW
09-15-2011, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Employers should be free to hire the most qualified candidate.

Someone who has been unemployed for over 6 months will almost never be as qualified as someone who has remained in the work force.

Next deflection? </div></div>


BS Any proof of that?

Eh.....No.

Q </div></div>

Yes ... the employed person had skill sets that enabled them to keep their job, the unemployed person didn't.

The unemployed person who found a job quickly had skill sets that allowed them to do so.

The long term unemployed didn't.

The deeper reason is that employees see two types of unemployed:

1 - Those who are wealth creators by nature who will accept employment, beneath what they were making before if that is what it takes, and build their career and the employer.

2 - Those who wealth destroyers that will ride the UE train until it dead eds before they try to find self reliance.

The type #1 employee is the type that will arrive at 8:45. leave at 5:15, and be proud to accept more challenging work.

The type #2 employee will slink in at 9:05 ... leave for lunch at 11:55 and slink back in at 1:05 ... start watching the clock at 3:30 and be a ghost by 5:00 and have a mantra of "THAT'S NOT MY JOB!"

Which would you prefer to hire with your own money?

Gayle in MD
09-15-2011, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is no fan of a proposal for the federal government to forbid employers from discriminating against the jobless based on their employment status.

"We're adding in this bill a new protected class called 'unemployed,'" Gohmert said on the floor of the House Tuesday. "I think this will help trial lawyers who are not having enough work. We heard from our friends across the aisle, 14 million people out of work -- that's 14 million new clients."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The American Jobs Act, submitted by President Obama to Congress this week, <u>has a section that would prohibit employers from not hiring someone just because they are jobless.</u></span>

According to the National Employment Law Project, Gohmert is incorrect: The proposal would not make employment status a protected class like race or sex. <u>It simply bans hiring discrimination against the jobless,</u> and is modeled off of legislation drafted by Democrats in Congress earlier this year.

As The Huffington Post has documented, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>employers are routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads. </u>As unemployment remains stagnant and 14 million Americans are out of work, this sort of discrimination pushes back against those who are desperately trying to get back in the workforce.</span>

Some major job board websites have conceded to pressure from activists and agreed to stop running job ads that include discrimination against the unemployed.

Republican leadership has not weighed in on whether they would support the provision, but Gohmert made a point to criticize it. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/republican-blasts-jobs-act-for-banning-unemployment-discrimination_n_963021.html)

Lets not hear the BS claim , 'the unemployed don't want to work', any more.

Q </div></div>

Repiglican Governors have done their part to fire as many as they could.

They don't want to see jobs recover, obviously, since their MAIN GOAL is to make President Obama, a one term president. That alone, in the midst of the Bush economic disaster, should be enough to enrage all Americans.

Latest Ipsos/Reuters polling data shows not one of their presidential contenders, can beat president Obama. He leaves them all behind, hence, right track/wrong track, does not seem to indicate Presidential disapproval, but references the grid lock, which can only be broken by a huge show up and vote, by our side, at the polls.

The right makes the mistake of thinking that the Tea Party Barbarians, are in the majority in our country. They aren't!

If Repiglicans cared anything about jobs, They wouldn't continue with the same policies which do not create JOBS!

Our only hope is that Dems/Liberals will go out and vote by the droves, a straight Democratic ticket, to offset the fascist election rigging of the Roberts Court.

Oh, and BTW, there is no way to communicate with these righties, annd avoid BS! That's all they have, BS, BS, And more BS, as all of we rational people can readily see.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-15-2011, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is no fan of a proposal for the federal government to forbid employers from discriminating against the jobless based on their employment status.

"We're adding in this bill a new protected class called 'unemployed,'" Gohmert said on the floor of the House Tuesday. "I think this will help trial lawyers who are not having enough work. We heard from our friends across the aisle, 14 million people out of work -- that's 14 million new clients."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The American Jobs Act, submitted by President Obama to Congress this week, <u>has a section that would prohibit employers from not hiring someone just because they are jobless.</u></span>

According to the National Employment Law Project, Gohmert is incorrect: The proposal would not make employment status a protected class like race or sex. <u>It simply bans hiring discrimination against the jobless,</u> and is modeled off of legislation drafted by Democrats in Congress earlier this year.

As The Huffington Post has documented, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>employers are routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads. </u>As unemployment remains stagnant and 14 million Americans are out of work, this sort of discrimination pushes back against those who are desperately trying to get back in the workforce.</span>

Some major job board websites have conceded to pressure from activists and agreed to stop running job ads that include discrimination against the unemployed.

Republican leadership has not weighed in on whether they would support the provision, but Gohmert made a point to criticize it. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/republican-blasts-jobs-act-for-banning-unemployment-discrimination_n_963021.html)

Lets not hear the BS claim , 'the unemployed don't want to work', any more.

Q </div></div>

BTW, you're correct in your title, common sense is not for Republicans. Just watching their barbaric behavior during the Tea Party Debate, proves that much, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They really proved the kind of low down, hateful pigs they are! Shades of the demons among us.

Hence, they're losing in recent polling data...
They don't have a single winning candidate!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/usa-poll-ipsos-idUSS1E78D18420110914



G.

Sev
09-15-2011, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is no fan of a proposal for the federal government to forbid employers from discriminating against the jobless based on their employment status.

"We're adding in this bill a new protected class called 'unemployed,'" Gohmert said on the floor of the House Tuesday. "I think this will help trial lawyers who are not having enough work. We heard from our friends across the aisle, 14 million people out of work -- that's 14 million new clients."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The American Jobs Act, submitted by President Obama to Congress this week, <u>has a section that would prohibit employers from not hiring someone just because they are jobless.</u></span>

According to the National Employment Law Project, Gohmert is incorrect: The proposal would not make employment status a protected class like race or sex. <u>It simply bans hiring discrimination against the jobless,</u> and is modeled off of legislation drafted by Democrats in Congress earlier this year.

As The Huffington Post has documented, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>employers are routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads. </u>As unemployment remains stagnant and 14 million Americans are out of work, this sort of discrimination pushes back against those who are desperately trying to get back in the workforce.</span>

Some major job board websites have conceded to pressure from activists and agreed to stop running job ads that include discrimination against the unemployed.

Republican leadership has not weighed in on whether they would support the provision, but Gohmert made a point to criticize it. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/republican-blasts-jobs-act-for-banning-unemployment-discrimination_n_963021.html)

Lets not hear the BS claim , 'the unemployed don't want to work', any more.

Q </div></div>

BTW, you're correct in your title, common sense if not for Republicans. Just watching their barbaric behavior during the Tea Party Debate, proves that much, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They really proved the kind of low down, hateful pigs they are! Shades of the demons among us.

G. </div></div>

Pigs and demons!!! Oh MY!!!!

LWW
09-15-2011, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was talking about Obama, Dearest Leader. </div></div>

eg8r
09-15-2011, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As The Huffington Post has documented, employers are routinely telling the unemployed they need not apply in job ads. </div></div>qtip quotes the lying liars yet again.

Where are all these routine ads?

eg8r