[oldembed width="420" height="245" src="https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" flashvars="launch=44692631&width=420&height=245" fid="2"]
The American Job Act also carries a provision that would protect the unemployed from being discriminated against when they apply for a new job. It seems like a logical step because Obama is trying to get American workers back to work. The many people who lost their jobs by no fault of their own, but as a repercussion of the financial collapse created by the banksters. Apparently Republicans and their mouthpieces are objecting to this protection even though they know workers are being discriminated against for being out of work for an extended period of time.
President Obama is backing legislation that would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.
Under the proposal, it would be "an unlawful employment practice" if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person "because of the individual's status as unemployed."
Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Obama's proposal would also prohibit employment agencies and websites from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received reports of such advertisements but does not have data to show how common they are.
You want data? How about some examples via Marketplace:
After I spoke to Anderson, I poked around at CareerBuilder.com and I found this job: Medical-equipment sales, St. Petersburg, Fla. Only, it says in bold caps, "MUST BE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED" or you won't get an interview and your resume will be deleted. I found similar ads that exclude the unemployed -- for restaurant managers in Atlanta, Houston and Iowa City; a service manager in New Jersey; an executive assistant at a New York hedge fund. Those listings would be illegal under legislation proposed by Democrats in Congress.
Enter Stephen Moore from the Wall Street Journal. He's a big business gasbag who always gets airtime to prop up what's best for Wall Street. This legislation actually ties him up in knots in this interview with Matthews. Chris exposes him as an idiot for siding with discrimination against workers out of work. The babbling Moore says it's wrong to say the Irish need not apply and being out of work shouldn't be held against you, but it's your problem for not having a job so the company use your unemployment record against you because you should already have a job when you start looking for a new one. The only time workers had any real power looking for work was when the economy was humming and companies were expanding back in the Clinton days so people did actually look for more perks and better pay while they had a job, but with over 9 percent unemployment across this country, not having a job is only an indicator of a bad economy.
I have to ask you, to start off at the bat -- let`s go with Steve -- what is the case for employers being allowed to say, don`t waste my time if you`re unemployed looking for a job; you`re not going to even get an interview here?
STEPHEN MOORE, SENIOR ECONOMIC WRITER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I don`t think it`s -- I don`t think it`s right to say, like, you know, like Irish need not apply, unemployed need not apply.
But I do think, Chris, that it is important for employers to be able to look at the worker job history, and if somebody`s been out of work for a long time, for better or for worse, that`s usually a negative on their resume. It doesn`t look -- I always tell people, you know, the best way to find a job is to have a job. And so --
MATTHEWS: But, Steve, you`re being redundant. If you tell a person they can`t apply for a job because they have been out of work, then the next time they apply for a job, they will say, you have been out of work longer; therefore, you can`t apply for this job.
It seems like it`s a redundant, vicious cycle you`re creating here.
MOORE: Well --
MATTHEWS: Don`t hire the unemployed, so they can be unemployed next week and not get hired by someone who won`t hire the unemployed.
Isn`t that a problem you have just created right here on this show?
MOORE: Well, this is why I think these --
MATTHEWS: You have just done it. You have stepped in it.
MOORE: No, I think that --
MOORE: I think the -- I think problem is -- one of the big problems with the -- half of the people who are unemployed now have been unemployed for more than six months.
I think one of the reasons for that, and the statistics show this, is we keep extending unemployment insurance. That`s kept people unemployed longer than they would otherwise be, and it`s hurt their job market prospects.
MATTHEWS: So, as they go out there to apply for a job, they`re told they can`t apply because they have been unemployed. But you say they don`t go looking for jobs because they have been getting benefits.
Which is it? Are they looking for jobs and being rejected?
MATTHEWS: Why would they put those signs up if they weren`t having people come in and looking for jobs or unemployed? They wouldn`t need to sign.
MOORE: Look --
MATTHEWS: It`s a good question. You don`t know the answer, do you? Why would you tell a person not to apply for unemployment when they unemployed aren`t looking for jobs? You wouldn`t need the sign, would you?
MOORE: Look, Chris, you`re taking out of context my words. I don`t think it`s fair for employers to say, if you don`t have a job, you can`t apply. But I do think it`s certainly legitimate for businesses to look at the work history. If somebody`s been out of work for two years, you`re less likely to want to hire that person than somebody who actually has been working.
MATTHEWS: OK. Dana, let me ask you this about this. I didn`t know this was going on. And I`ll tell you one thing -- I`m into politics, not hiring people. I think it sounds like hell.
This is the worst I've heard. You don't help a guy or a woman who`s out of work, say a plant closed. It`s not their fault, they`re living in some small town, all there is is the plant. There`s not another plant opening up. It`s not their fault.