In a time of such high unemployment-and as I have made clear in previous posts I am one of the unemployed-it's great to know that some employers actively work against the unemployed ever working again. There has been a surge in ads the last few years that require applicants to already have a job to even be allowed an interview.
Now however, advocates for the unemployed are cheered by a recent move by President Obama to not only ban such ads but to enable the unemployed to sue if they believe they have been discriminated against.
Not surprisingly there are advocates for employers decrying the move.
Advocates for employers oppose the proposed ban. "We do not see a need for it," Michael Eastman of the Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times.
"Lawrence Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, told the paper the president's proposal "opens another avenue of employment litigation and nuisance lawsuits."
"Louie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, went further. He told the Times that the proposal would send the following message: "If you're unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer. You may be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you were unemployed."
Great to know that Mr. Eastman "doesn't see a need for it." After all he as job security. As for Rep. Gohmert I know the message you prefer: that employers have carte blanche to discriminate against the unemployed out of the usual perversity that has enabled some to claim that we may at 9.1% unemployment already be approaching a "natural rate of unemployment."
It's bad enough that we have until now been unable to bring down unemployment. But how about the fact that some actively work against bringing it down like Eastman, Gohmer, et al.
If Mr. Lorber is worried about opening another avenue he only needs to instruct his clients to close their current avenue for putting up The Unemployed Need Not Apply.