‘Unemployed’ Protected From Employers

Katy Grimes: The state is trying to prevent employers from legally looking into the employment backgrounds of job applicants.

A bill claiming to “protect” the unemployed from discrimination by potential employers is making its way through the Legislature.

The government already protects racial minorities, veterans, older workers, women, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, the disabled, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and religious individuals.

AB 1450, by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, would prohibit employers from turning away applicants because they are unemployed, and states that employment status cannot used as consideration during the application, hiring and employment process.

There have been many attempts to add to the protected classifications including weight, and those living in areas of “general economic distress.”

Employers now face crimes of every imaginable kind because of California’s vast overreach into the workplace.  Any state agency investigator, whether from OSHA, Cal EPA, water resources, air resources, immigration, the fire marshall, parking enforcement, and all of the taxing agencies, can make an unannounced visit to employers, and demand to see documentation regarding the agency, or make a site visit to look for violations.

And on any given day, there isn’t an employer in the state who wouldn’t be cited for some random violation.

The state is now trying to look into the hearts of Human Resource managers to determine if they are discriminating against the unemployed.

When I was a HR manager, I coached my manufacturing managers to be wary of job applicants who might be government plants looking for ADA violators, discrimination cases, employment law violations, and the like. There are lawyers who also send fake applicants on job interviews, looking for employers to set up and sue.

In the manufacturing company in which I worked, a classified advertisement for a job often netted many applicants. But I was suspicious if a disabled person applied for a very physically demanding job. I was suspicious if a woman applied for a physical or dirty job historically held by strong, burley men. And, I was most suspicious of age discrimination cases – when someone nearing retirement applied for an entry-level job, or something they were grossly overqualified for.

This is what California’s ridiculous employment and discrimination laws have done to employers.

Now employers will have to be on the lookout for the unemployed – what an oxymoron.

Unfortunately, many of the habitually unemployed are unemployable. They don’t want a full-time job. But the Employment Development Department and CalWorks programs require them occasionally to prove they are actively looking for work.

If AB 1450 passes, those same people will be able to claim they were discriminated against if they are not offered the job.

Private sector employers tend to hire based on need, and do not make hiring decisions based on gender, race or other categories. It’s only the government which hires based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or veteran status. And it’s only the government which is always exempt from its own laws.

This bill is proof that California needs a part-time Legislature. Instead of working, California employers spend more than half of their time fending off the thousands of bad laws cooked up by a mostly irrelevant, tainted and mercenary state Legislature.

MAR. 22, 2012

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. David H
    David H 22 March, 2012, 14:10

    I think they need to make employment laws more lax, allowing employers to “try” out a potential employee without negative consequences if the probationary period doesn’t work out for the employer. The fear of discrimination lawsuits and increased unemployment tax rates, workers compensation claims (and now health care costs) keep companies from hiring people who may have had periods of unemployment or underemployment . That would really open up the field to qualified applicants that are currently excluded from the hiring processes and may be profitable and productive employees if they got the chance.

    Reply this comment
  2. queeg
    queeg 23 March, 2012, 09:59

    I am considering selling an totalee PC employment screening device….

    It has feathers, a wood shaft and a pointeee metal tip.

    Showed prototype to a HR manager….he called it a DART!

    Directions: place 100 resumes on ground in parking lot….throw the device from company building roof….HIRE where pointee tip lands.

    Reply this comment
  3. sean
    sean 25 March, 2012, 22:05

    Just like Europe – who is going to take a chance on hiring any new employees here? This will decrease the flexibility of the workforce, which should be dictated by the economy, not for the politicians that think everything can be fixed into some sort of utopia just by passing laws on top of laws….

    this while the population of California pays no attention and reelects these folks into office year after year.

    Reply this comment
  4. Kris
    Kris 27 March, 2012, 22:38

    What’s the problem here. According to most of our corruptocrats unemployment is going away, foreclosures and the like are non existent, Banks are lending our money back to us, what’s the problem here, life is good, so say our corruptocrats.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

L.A. Controller’s audit reveals overtime pay abuse

Los Angeles City Controller Ron Galperin released an audit on Tuesday outlining excessive overtime use in the Department of Transportation. The

MSNBC-style media on the bandwagon for bullet-train farce

April 8, 2013 By Chris Reed When a friend urged me to check out the edition of “Dan Rather Reports”

A New Portrait for Jerry Brown?

Laura Sucheski: Here’s a question that’s surely been on the minds of California political history geeks everywhere. If Jerry Brown