New Jersey Bans Job Ads That Discriminate Against Unemployed

[Keith Bee]

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 don’t want somebody saying, ‘Just because you're unemployed I’m 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-bans-unemployed-job-discrimination_n_853513.html

---

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.

[Mimosa]

1. I can imagine such ads causing depression, even suicides, sad to say. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

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

[Keith Bee]

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.

[arcane1]

2. This makes it 0.8% harder to screen out the unemployed.

But it's better than nothing.

[RKP5637]

3. +1000, +++ I would also fine them some serious money, like $50k per offense. n/t

[Keith Bee]

13. But, but, but that would cost God-Approved Capitalist Companies a Lot of Coin!

:cry:

[RKP5637]

20. Yep, in "Plutocratic Capitalism We Trust!" What a tragedy. n/t

[TK421]

28. $1000 is pocket change n/t

[w4rma]

5. But they can still discriminate? And now folks don't know they are being descriminated against. (nt)

[arcane1]

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.

[backtomn]

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.

[CreekDog]

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.

[Xithras]

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.

[bluestateguy]

8. I'm not exactly sure how this will be enforced

but I hope it can be.

[LoveIsNow]

9. It's definitely a nice gesture,

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.

[Art_from_Ark]

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.

[LibertyFox]

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.

[mysterysoup]

15. Right. n/t

[Keith Bee]

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."

[LibertyFox]

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.

[ck4829]

26. It is stupid, but the ads are out there.

[wickerwoman]

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.

[saras]

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.

[Keith Bee]

19. Trench Warfare

The small battles still need fighting, because they do add up.

[freshwest]

29. +1000

[raccoon]

21. It's always been that it's easier to find a job if you have a job, IME.

I have NEVER understood why.

[WatsonT]

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.

[TorchTheWitch]

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.

[WatsonT]

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.

[ck4829]

27. These vicious cycles are strangling the American Dream.

May more States follow as well as this being only the weakest of the things they do.

K&R.