Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Jersey Bans Job Ads That Discriminate Against Unemployed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:32 PM
Original message
New Jersey Bans Job Ads That Discriminate Against Unemployed
Source: Huffington Post

In New Jersey, it is no longer legal for employers to specify in their job ads that unemployed persons will not be considered.

Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently signed a bill that bans overt discrimination against the jobless in print or online -- the first legislation of its kind in the United States. Employers would face a penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

New Jersey state Rep. Celeste Riley (D-Cumberland), a primary sponsor of the bill, said she became aware of the problem of employers discriminating against the jobless when her colleague showed her an actual online job ad that ruled out unemployed candidates.

My district has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, and when jobs are few and far between, I dont want somebody saying, Just because you're unemployed Im not gonna hire you, she told The Huffington Post. There's the old theory of you need a job to get a job, but that's absolutely unacceptable. You should be employed based on your skills and what you bring to the table.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/new-jersey-ban...



Guy walks into a party unaccompanied, the women there ignore him. Same guy walks in with a date, all the women want to talk and flirt. The "already employed only" practice is equally perverse, not to mention stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can imagine such ads causing depression, even suicides, sad to say. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Absolutely. Absolutely. To so-openly thrust a caste system on...
...Americans (i.e. "employment untouchables") is not something Americans have any kind of reference point to even understand, culturally. Not to mention how nasty a system it is, period. I'm glad they're getting rid of that because it's unconscionable segregate potential employees based on current employment.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. It's not such a long descent.....
...from class, which we already have, to caste. And I think that's exactly what many Repukes are aiming for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. This makes it 0.8% harder to screen out the unemployed.
But it's better than nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. +1000, +++ I would also fine them some serious money, like $50k per offense. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. But, but, but that would cost God-Approved Capitalist Companies a Lot of Coin!
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Yep, in "Plutocratic Capitalism We Trust!" What a tragedy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TK421 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
28. $1000 is pocket change n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. But they can still discriminate? And now folks don't know they are being descriminated against. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You got it. The key word is "overt "
They can still do it all they want, they just can't spell it out in a classified ad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I agree..........
......this is similar to speech codes or the government punishing someone for their words. All you do is push it underground. I want to know who the racist person is..........just as I would like to know what company discriminates in this way. I would be happy to quit using their products. That may be the only way to change things. Now, you mildly inconvenience them, because they may need to review a few more resumes.....nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. our laws also prevent racist ads
While I also want to know who they are, allowing such discriminatory actions in their business practices ( which includes advertising) is not the solution to identifying the bigoted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Yes. They can still dump the resume, but they can't advertise it anymore.
It's a "feel good" law, nothing more.

Besides, this gets tricky to enforce. Let's say that you have two applicants for a position who have roughly similar work experience. One is currently employed by your competitor across town, and the other has been unemployed for two years. Which is the better candidate? Most managers would hire the currently employed person, simply because their experience is more recent. Many people would argue that this ISN'T discrimination against the unemployed, because the skills of the employed applicant are more current, and therefore more valuable and relevant to the market as it exists today.

On the other hand, flat out banning ANY currently unemployed applicants is CLEARLY discrimination (and would be illegal here in California, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act).

But, it's a genuinely murky question, which is why legislators don't want to address the hiring process directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm not exactly sure how this will be enforced
but I hope it can be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoveIsNow Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's definitely a nice gesture,
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 07:59 PM by LoveIsNow
even though I doubt it will change anything substantially.

In a month I will have been looking for my first job for a year. I hadn't worked before because I always did well in school, so my family always told me that school was my job, and discouraged me from working, so I have no paid experience. Then last year tuition went up and financial aid was cut and suddenly I was faced with a budget gap and had to drop out of college and move back with my parents. I've tried to get jobs so demeaning I would have never considered them a year ago to no avail. I've seen my application be thrown out before I've even turned around to leave, I've been told to my face I'm unemployable, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've even been granted the courtesy of an interview.

So, at this point, I absolutely do believe the aphorism mentioned in the article that you have to have a job to get a job.

It makes me feel better, though, to know that somewhere someone is trying to help in some way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I was in the same situation as you back in the '80s
Exactly as you described. It was really tough, and I had to work at quite a few demeaning, low-paying jobs. All I can say is, hang in there, and hopefully you can at least find some sort of job that will earn you enough to get back in school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyFox Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. Doesn't make sense.
That doesn't really make sense. Why would a business discrinimate against the unemployed? I mean unless it's a specialist position you'd think employers would be wanting to get people who just need a job and aren't in a position to bargain for higher wages and benefits.

Maybe it's just because I've been unemployed for a year and I'd take pretty much anything at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mysterysoup Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. They wanna see you "hustle"
Hey, in our trade up/throwaway society, you have to show your willingness to stiff your current employer for the advertised "better."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyFox Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Something to that
But trying to get you to stiff your current employer would also mean you could/would do the same to them.

Thinking about it some more I'm coming to the conclusion that they want someone in like a entry level minimum wage job so that you can prove that you are at least employable.

Sucks for me because getting a minimum wage job means I will have a full time job and still not be able to pay my mortgage. Still it'd beat having 0 income.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. It is stupid, but the ads are out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Because it's easier to assume if you're unemployed it must be your fault,
than it is to spend ten seconds finding out the real story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. What difference does it make?
Who cares whether or not they can say it in the ads if they enforce it in real life? The bill doesn't prohibit discrimination in employment, just in the job ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Trench Warfare
The small battles still need fighting, because they do add up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
21. It's always been that it's easier to find a job if you have a job, IME.

I have NEVER understood why.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Assumption that people who are unemployed are unemployed for a reason
whereas people who are employed and looking for a better job have initiative.

Not always fair but that's the logic.

Same reason men in a couple appear more attractive than single men. There must be some reason he has a girlfriend, something good. Whereas there must be some bad reason why the other guy doesn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I've never understood it either
And it is for some unfathomable reason true in my own experience. It makes no sense. You would think companies would want the most desperate people as the desperate are so much easier to exploit.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. Wouldn't they just discriminate later on?
Instead of sorting through resumes by the usual criteria they now look for current employers and remove anyone without one.

Maybe it takes them 5 minutes to sort out the resumes and the end result is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. These vicious cycles are strangling the American Dream.
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 04:37 PM by ck4829
May more States follow as well as this being only the weakest of the things they do.

K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC