The American Jobs Act provides yet another example of President Obama potentially snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It proposes a punitive response to a problem that now plagues the country—employers are hesitant to hire the long-term unemployed. The missed opportunity is still there to be had: How about providing incentives?
At issue is the Job Act’s proposal to make it “an unlawful employment practice” to refuse employment “because of the individual’s status as unemployed,” so long as the potential employer is a business with at least 15 employees. Obama is trying to attack a real problem—about 6 million Americans are “long-term unemployed,” with nearly three-quarters of them being unemployed for more than a year. Outrageously, companies are actually stating in job listings that they will not accept applicants who are not currently employed. But does it really make sense to elevate unemployment to a protected status with race, creed, national origin or anything else protected by the Constitution?
[Article: How to Fix the Foreclosure Crisis: A Real Bailout]
This proposal would be a double whammy for many job seekers, because employers are also increasingly checking the credit reports of potential hires. A 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resources Management reported that 60% of employers run credit checks on at least some job applicants (though most are performed for finance-related positions), up from 42% reported in a roughly comparable survey in 2006. Job loss and challenged credit tend to go hand-in-glove, irrespective of the moral integrity or financial management skills of the individual. One significant and unexpected medical bill can mean bad credit if your income consists of an unemployment insurance check every two weeks. In response to this trend, a significant number of the nation’s State legislatures have introduced or passed laws that restrict the ability of employers to check the credit of the prospective employee. There is at least one piece of proposed federal legislation to a similar effect that has been locked in committee for the last two years.
[Resource: Get your free Credit Report Card]
To be honest, I’m a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I believe it is generally unfair to deny employment to an otherwise acceptable applicant solely because they have bad credit due to unemployment, or because they have been unable to secure a job in a very tough economy (or both).
On the other hand, maybe there are some circumstances where an employer’s need to know genuinely outweighs any legitimate interest of a prospective employee, or society as a whole. Discrimination on the basis of race or creed or gender was outlawed for obvious reasons, but is it unfair to suggest that I’m not comfortable hiring someone to manage my finances when they can’t manage their own finances? And what about the disgruntled, unqualified job applicant with the unfettered ability to sue a prospective employer on the basis of discrimination based on credit checking or job status? It would mean full employment for lawyers, but I do not believe that it will solve the unemployment problem that we face as a nation. If anything, it may well raise yet another barrier to those who are pounding the pavement at a time when we should be encouraging employers to stop outsourcing or using overtime and part-time staff instead of actually hiring the right person for the job. Honestly, I’m a bit concerned that the proposed rule may eventually amount to a federally protected right to employment.
[Featured Product: Compare prepaid debit cards]
Memo to Obama: Push for Jobs, Don’t Shove Employers (cont.) »
Image: jacob.braun, via Flickr.com
Pages: 1 2
Pages: 1 2
Adam Levin Adam Levin is chairman and co-founder of Credit.com and Identity Theft 911. His experience as former director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs gives him unique insight into consumer privacy, legislation and financial advocacy. He is a nationally recognized expert on identity theft and credit.
Follow Us
