Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Teabaggers call for business owners not to hire anyone

Page 5 of 9 [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 Oct 2011, 1:26 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I propose that if Obama got his desire to make it illegal to "discriminate" against unemployed people, you'd see hiring grind to a halt. Even if you hire an unemployed person, another unemployed person could accuse you of discrimination and the EEOC inquiry will result in legal costs even if the EEOC quickly determines there is no merit to the accusation.

The only way hiring will be done after such a situation would be for employers to turn to recruitment rather than applications. It might seem like splitting hairs, but if you "recruit" a person, you seek them out and ask them to come to work for you. Government can not mandate who you seek to recruit. If you accept applications, government can mandate who you must consider as an applicant.

Hiring will go much slower and job creation will be limited to how badly an employer needs a position filled.


Your proposition is failing, kid.


Actually, what zer0netgain is saying is correct.
Oh is it? Since when is it illegal nationwide to discriminate based on employment status when it comes to hiring???


It is a proposed law and may also be a new regulation that will be put in place by executive order. What zer0netgain is talking about isn't a hypothetical, the fight over this is going on right now and I think it was in Obama's jobs bill.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

25 Oct 2011, 2:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I propose that if Obama got his desire to make it illegal to "discriminate" against unemployed people, you'd see hiring grind to a halt. Even if you hire an unemployed person, another unemployed person could accuse you of discrimination and the EEOC inquiry will result in legal costs even if the EEOC quickly determines there is no merit to the accusation.

The only way hiring will be done after such a situation would be for employers to turn to recruitment rather than applications. It might seem like splitting hairs, but if you "recruit" a person, you seek them out and ask them to come to work for you. Government can not mandate who you seek to recruit. If you accept applications, government can mandate who you must consider as an applicant.

Hiring will go much slower and job creation will be limited to how badly an employer needs a position filled.


Your proposition is failing, kid.


Actually, what zer0netgain is saying is correct.
Oh is it? Since when is it illegal nationwide to discriminate based on employment status when it comes to hiring???


Wait, wouldn't hiring an unemployed person be de-facto evidence that you did not discriminate against unemployed people as a class?

Do companies get accused of discriminating against black people because they chose one black applicant over another?

It is a proposed law and may also be a new regulation that will be put in place by executive order. What zer0netgain is talking about isn't a hypothetical, the fight over this is going on right now and I think it was in Obama's jobs bill.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 Oct 2011, 2:59 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I propose that if Obama got his desire to make it illegal to "discriminate" against unemployed people, you'd see hiring grind to a halt. Even if you hire an unemployed person, another unemployed person could accuse you of discrimination and the EEOC inquiry will result in legal costs even if the EEOC quickly determines there is no merit to the accusation.

The only way hiring will be done after such a situation would be for employers to turn to recruitment rather than applications. It might seem like splitting hairs, but if you "recruit" a person, you seek them out and ask them to come to work for you. Government can not mandate who you seek to recruit. If you accept applications, government can mandate who you must consider as an applicant.

Hiring will go much slower and job creation will be limited to how badly an employer needs a position filled.


Your proposition is failing, kid.


Actually, what zer0netgain is saying is correct.
Oh is it? Since when is it illegal nationwide to discriminate based on employment status when it comes to hiring???

It is a proposed law and may also be a new regulation that will be put in place by executive order. What zer0netgain is talking about isn't a hypothetical, the fight over this is going on right now and I think it was in Obama's jobs bill.



Wait, wouldn't hiring an unemployed person be de-facto evidence that you did not discriminate against unemployed people as a class?

Do companies get accused of discriminating against black people because they chose one black applicant over another?


Not everyone whom is un-employed is black, so actually race can enter the issue for a lawsuit. Then we have the under-employed people that could argue that they are being discriminated against and they can sue.

Only people this idea helps are trial lawyers.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

25 Oct 2011, 4:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Wait, wouldn't hiring an unemployed person be de-facto evidence that you did not discriminate against unemployed people as a class?

Do companies get accused of discriminating against black people because they chose one black applicant over another?


Not everyone whom is un-employed is black, so actually race can enter the issue for a lawsuit. Then we have the under-employed people that could argue that they are being discriminated against and they can sue.

Only people this idea helps are trial lawyers.


That may be true but you are still full of sh!t.

If a law defines a class of people, and you are within that class, it's very black and white whether you were discriminated against as part of that class.

An underemployed person is not an unemployed person. It would never go to trial.

You can sue for any reason at all, fwiw, regardless of law.



AspieRogue

25 Oct 2011, 4:29 pm

InuYasha is a piss poor liar. Then again he's a conservative who's neither rich nor an employer, so he can't be all that bright. :lol:



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

25 Oct 2011, 4:31 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
InuYasha is a piss poor liar. Then again he's a conservative who's neither rich nor an employer, so he can't be all that bright. :lol:

Inuyasha is expressing his opinions. Please refrain from personal attacks.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Oct 2011, 4:37 pm

pandabear wrote:
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1566647&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Quote:
I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.



What is wrong with a boycott. It is perfectly legal. It may not be wise, but it does not violate the law.

Remember the bus boycott. That was applauded by the left wing. When a right winger proposes a boycott the left goes ballistic.

ruveyn



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

25 Oct 2011, 6:38 pm

Fnord wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
InuYasha is a piss poor liar. Then again he's a conservative who's neither rich nor an employer, so he can't be all that bright. :lol:

Inuyasha is expressing his opinions. Please refrain from personal attacks.


When he asserts that his opinions are factual we are entering a gray area, no?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Oct 2011, 6:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1566647&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Quote:
I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.



What is wrong with a boycott. It is perfectly legal. It may not be wise, but it does not violate the law.

Remember the bus boycott. That was applauded by the left wing. When a right winger proposes a boycott the left goes ballistic.

ruveyn

And the right does the same thing when the left proposes a boycott. Why isn't turnabout fair play?

What is amusing to me about this whole episode is how transparently it exposes the idea that right-wingers don't give a damn about their communities or their country; getting their way, and hurting Obama, is more important to them than any of that. I'm not an 'Obama supporter,' but I do accept the fact that he's the president and believe that all of the branches should work together for the greater good.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Oct 2011, 6:51 pm

hahaha, that tea party guy really feels like a business owner. LoL

I guess they just thought occupy were getting too much attention so they decided to up their crazy up to eleven to compete.


_________________
.


AspieRogue

25 Oct 2011, 7:11 pm

What incentive do employers have to care about the health of the economy so long as they are able to hold on to what they have and not lose money? A bad economy is in many ways more favorable to those who already have property and access to capital because it allows them to acquire even more property from people who can't pay their bills. Capitalism is purely a game of self-interest if you want employers to hire people and be less picky, you must create an incentive for it to happen. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this voodoo economics really doesn't work and it certainly has an ugly track record(the 30s).



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

25 Oct 2011, 7:15 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
What incentive do employers have to care about the health of the economy so long as they are able to hold on to what they have and not lose money? A bad economy is in many ways more favorable to those who already have property and access to capital because it allows them to acquire even more property from people who can't pay their bills. Capitalism is purely a game of self-interest if you want employers to hire people and be less picky, you must create an incentive for it to happen. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this voodoo economics really doesn't work and it certainly has an ugly track record(the 30s).


Businesses hire when it doesn't make sense not to hire.

If you don't need another employee, don't hire. If hiring another employee means that you make more money than if you didn't, then hire.

It's really that simple.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Oct 2011, 7:16 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
What incentive do employers have to care about the health of the economy so long as they are able to hold on to what they have and not lose money? A bad economy is in many ways more favorable to those who already have property and access to capital because it allows them to acquire even more property from people who can't pay their bills. Capitalism is purely a game of self-interest if you want employers to hire people and be less picky, you must create an incentive for it to happen. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this voodoo economics really doesn't work and it certainly has an ugly track record(the 30s).


A weak economy is not good news to owners of small and medium size firms. Perhaps some of the mega corporations can go offshore for cheap labor and increase their profits but this strategy is definitely not available to small business firms and most medium size firms. The best guarantee of profits is a strong economy with lots of people working and buying stuff. That is how to keep the kettle boiling.

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

26 Oct 2011, 8:34 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Only people this idea helps are trial lawyers.


True (and can people please correctly nest quotes or not do it at all...very hard to follow).

ANYONE CAN SUE. ANYONE CAN CLAIM DISCRIMINATION.

Make another "protected class" and even if you hire a minority or unemployed person, nothing stops another person from filing a complaint.

Lawyers are DESPERATE for anything that will likely bring in a check to their office right now. Most of the confusing laws on the books are that way because lawyers drafted the law that way to create work for their fellow lawyers.

All a productive businessperson cares about is AVOIDING liabilities.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

26 Oct 2011, 11:22 am

But really, a lot of HR departments are roundfiling the resumes of anyone who isn't currently working, and some come right out and advertise that the unemployed need not apply.

Which is pretty dickish.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Oct 2011, 1:20 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
But really, a lot of HR departments are roundfiling the resumes of anyone who isn't currently working, and some come right out and advertise that the unemployed need not apply.

Which is pretty dickish.


But currently legal. I think it is a thoroughly bad idea and it is also very unjust. It is a way of blaming the victim of what might be bad luck for his bad luck.

The employers doing this are really acting against their own interests because they will force the government to either become the employer of last resort OR the government will have to go to a system of permanent doles to prevent extreme panic and dissatisfaction. It is a very short sighted thing to do.

ruveyn