1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Unemployed: Didn't Get That Job? Sue!

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Blackthorne TA, Sep 27, 2011.

  1. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,407
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    Is this idea purely political pandering, or is there really an explanation that isn't nonsensical? To say that discrimination against the unemployed makes "absolutely no sense" itself makes no sense. If it made no sense, then why would employers discriminate? Ludicrous!

    I think the administration's jobs plan is to provide more jobs for lawyers :)
     
  2. Death Rabbit

    Death Rabbit Straight, no chaser Adored Veteran Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    6,103
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    241
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. I question the logic behind this one. Employers have a reason for not wanting to hire the long-term unemployed, it just isn't a very good one. Rather than punish those who don't hire the unemployed, it would make more sense to incentivise those who do. That's already a part of the recent jobs bill in the form of tax rebates, and I applaud them (the administration) for it. I'm just not sure why they tacked this on.

    There is probably a decent explanation for it as they see it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I'd be open to hearing one, though. I don't think it's purely pandering, though I'm sure that's part of it.
     
  3. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,407
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    Hm. I'm not sure I like incentives to hire the unemployed either. Incentives to hire, period, maybe. The only advantage I can think of in preferentially hiring an unemployed person is if a company would decide to eliminate the position if their employee left to take another job. Which would mean that the company really didn't need the position in the first place, and was just being nice in holding on to the person.

    Otherwise, if a currently employed person takes the position of a new job opening, it necessarily means there will still be a job opening available, and somebody somewhere will have to employ an unemployed person of a simliar skill set at some point.
     
  4. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's unnecessary simply because the only thing it will do is to stop the practice of saying "unemployed need not apply" - or something to that effect. You can probably come up with a dozen different excuses for why you chose not to hire a specific person. So long as you don't say, "You didn't get the job because you are unemployed" to the person who applied, how can they prove that was the reason you did it?

    In today's job market it's not at all unusual for there to be 10 times as many applicants as there are positions to fill. Nine out of 10 people aren't getting that job no matter how many of them are employed or not. You could come up with many reasons for not hiring a specific person like:

    1. We took someone with more experience.
    2. We took someone who had a skill set that more closely matched the job description.
    3. We did hire someone who was unemployed - it's just that the person wasn't you.
    4. We took someone who had a lower salary requirement.

    And so on and so forth. You can almost always come up with another reason to not hire someone if you don't want to.
     
  5. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,407
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    True, and a law then makes it possible for the disaffected to bring suit. That's all we need in this country: Another reason for those who blame everything on everyone but themselves and those who make a living bringing suits against anyone they can to abuse the justice system.
     
  6. The Great Snook Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,123
    Media:
    28
    Likes Received:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't remember, which party does the "trial lawyers" support? :)
     
  7. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Male
    You can bring suit - that doesn't mean you'll win. Like I said, there are dozens of reasons you can have for not hiring someone. Unless you're stupid enough to tell them that the reason they aren't being hired is because they are unemployed, the onus is on the person bringing suit to prove that's the reason you did it.
     
  8. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Snook, the only reason that the GOP keeeps harping on that 'trial lawyer' thing is that the corporate interests that fund the GOP want to reduce their liability, if posssible to zero, under the pretext of 'individual responsibility' - and it is trial lawyers that make them pay for damages caused by their products. They are thus the natural target for GOP scorn.

    That trial lawyers and their cases at times reach absurd extremes, and indeed must, is a result of poorly or not at all codified law in the US and reliance on often absurd or simply obsolete precedence. We don't have as absurd cases here because we have clearly codified civil law that sets strict limits on damages. We also have, more broadly speaking, a system that socialises some of the risk inherent in everyday affairs. That lady who won millions for scalding herself by spilling that hot McD coffee - imposssible in Germany. She would have gotten treatment costs, maybe some amount for pain and suffering but not nearly as much as in the US. And punitive damages? We don't have that. We don't have that quota litis either, further disincentivising frivolous lawsuits - there just isn't any money in it here.

    Have a workplace accident? You get your treatment paid by the respective "employer´s liability insurance association" - into which all respective industries have to pay in. In case of injury there is no need to sue anyone, which means that there is no needs to burn bridges. Employees usually continue to work for the company afterwards (something quite unlikely if they had to sue their employer to recover treatment costs). In contrast, the only way in the US for an injured party to recover such costs often is the trial lawyer.

    In that sense, don't blame the trial lawyers but that at times anachronistic legal system they work in. The people blaming the trial layers busy themselves keeping it that way. 'Tort reform' is just a way of not having to say 'reducing liability for corporate donors'.
     
  9. Déise

    Déise Both happy and miserable, without the happy part!

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    30
    The job openings could be covered by new entrants to the workforce, could they not? Maybe not directly but a couple of people get moved up a step on the career ladder and a job for a new worker is created. Also there is always a pool of unemployed and nowadays a big pool. The openings could be taken by the recently unemployed and the long term could be left langiushing.

    There is a serious issue in that when you're long term unemployed your skills will atrophy and you'd find it harder to fit back into work. I don't see letting people sue as being the answer though, it's ignoring that there is a genuine problem. As Aldeth said employers would just make up a reason not to hire them. Providing incentives would be better. That would cost money though whereas changing the law is more or less free for the government so they can pretend they're doing something.

    I would be seriously irked if I saw ads with phrases like "jobless need not apply". It makes no sense for people who are let go recently. I was unemployed for about 10 weeks or so. That wasn't much longer than the time I had off for study leave when doing my exams. It certainly wasn't long enough to affect my ability to do the job.
     
  10. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,407
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely, but to me a new entrant without a job is unemployed too.

    And many new entrants have difficulty getting jobs due to their lack of experience; shall we make inexperience a protected trait now too and allow people to sue employers who don't hire them due to their inexperience?
     
  11. Déise

    Déise Both happy and miserable, without the happy part!

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    30
    I'd put new entrants as a different category. There's quite a different set of problems and in many cases the jobs suitable for them are different as well. New entrants are often only suitable for some jobs. Long term unemployed have problems with all jobs. And my point is that it's possible for someone to stay in the unemployed pool indefinitely. I don't think it's a bad idea to offer them supports to try and break out of that trap (though the lawsuit idea is stupid).
     
  12. The Great Snook Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,123
    Media:
    28
    Likes Received:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been thinking about this thread and I think there are many similar things in the world of employment. We had an employee that we laid off about three years. Somehow we have remained in the loop about him over this time and he has landed jobs at three other CPA firms and ended up being laid off all three of them. He isn't a bad guy, he just isn't the greatest at our profession. With the economy struggling and firms having to cut back, everytime a firm has layoffs he is considered one of the weakest links and he is let go. I can't help but think if I was a hiring manager and his resume came across my desk I wouldn't call him back as the work history would show there is something wrong. Isn't that kind of the same thing? If someone has been unemployed long term why shouldn't that trouble an employer that the employee may be no good?

    My last thought is, I wonder how much creativity (or just plain lying) is going on in resumes nowadays. It isn't like lying on a resume or job application is a crime and as long as you aren't going for a "public" position or something you aren't qualified for where is the harm? I'm guessing anyone can work retail?
     
  13. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Male
    I would say that holding multiple jobs in a short period of time - like your former co-worker - is a much bigger red flag that having been laid off once, even if it was some months ago. I think most managers understand that state of the economy, and that many people have lost their jobs because their company went under - they lost their jobs not because of poor performance or an undesirable work ethic.

    But I completely agree that if I got a resume of someone who has been employed and laid off at three different companies in the last couple of years, that would set alarm bells ringing for me. The only two possible explanations would be that he is either not very good at what he does, or he's really, really unlucky.

    Nowadays? I'm sure it's just as much as always, which is to say rampant. I think creative resumes have been around since, well, resumes have been around.
     
  14. Gaear

    Gaear ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,877
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    180
    Which is why background checks/employment verification exist. :)
     
  15. Déise

    Déise Both happy and miserable, without the happy part!

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    30
    A friend of a friend got fired when they followed up his references. He had worked somewhere for 8 months but put down a year on his CV. That was exceptionally harsh in my opinion, the difference is marginal.
     
  16. Gaear

    Gaear ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,877
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    180
    They checked his references after hiring him? Weird.
     
  17. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    As a matter of fact, at least in Germany it is a crime - Eingeghungsbetrug - a specific vartiant of fraud, justifying, beyond criminal charges, an immediate termination of contract by the employer (if he chooses to do that). Falsifying or modifying references or credentials is simply forgery.
     
  18. The Great Snook Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,123
    Media:
    28
    Likes Received:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    Here in the U.S. almost everyone is an "employee at will" so there isn't a contractual relationship between the employee and the employer. I'm surmising that is why it isn't treated as a fraud because the employer has the right to terminate the employee because of it without recourse.
     
  19. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Snook,
    two things: For one, the phrase 'employee at will' doesn't mean it isn't a contract. Of course there is a contractual relationship between the two - it simply is a contract without recourse (even without recourse it is still a mutual agreement about the exchange of services for money under conditions; to be a contract it doesn't even need to be in writing). Second, you overlook that there is a civil law and criminal law dimension in this, with the two being distinctly different. The contract is a civil law matter, the fraud a criminal law matter.

    In Germany typical criminal cases along this line are when people are hired based on their claim to have, for instance, medical or law degrees, but don't, and have forged their credentials. When charges are filed then these people are usually being sentenced. The point is that the average employers usually are content with firing and usually do not press charges. Hospitals and law firms, or public sector employers for that matter, usually do file - be it only to limit their own liability (public sector employers, as wardens of the rule of law, are, usually, obliged to report criminal acts like fraud to law enforcement).
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2011
  20. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah that's really weird. Were there other issues? Because I agree saying a year when it was actually eight months seems like a marginal amount of time. Especially seeing as how with my resumes I only put down the years to begin with, not the actual months. If I was only working at a job for part of a year, say from January - August in 2011, I'd probably list it on my resume as "name of job: 2011." I wouldn't get to the level of detail of months.

    The only way I could see this being a big issue is if you fiddled around to make it look like a lot longer than it was. For example, if you worked at a company from November 2010 until January 2011, it would be disingenuous to put down on a resume "Name of job: 2010-2011", as that would suggest you were talking about a term of employment of about two years, not three months.
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.