Consider this story from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T ECM)
Excerpt:
When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.
So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.
However, she hadn’t reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community – the completely useless.
When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn’t ask for ‘reliable’ and ‘hard-working’ applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.
‘In my 15 years in recruitment I haven’t heard anything so ridiculous,’ Mrs Mamo said yesterday.
‘If the matter wasn’t so serious I would be laughing out loud.
‘Unfortunately it’s extremely alarming. I need people who are hardworking and reliable – and I am pleased to discriminate in that way. If they’re not then I really can’t use them. The reputation of my business is on the line.
‘Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being dicriminatory against unreliable people.
Socialism doesn’t help people to find jobs. Socialism hurts the poor.
Related posts
- How Democrat policies cause unemployment to increase
- Unemployment rate among men aged 25-54 is 19.4%
- Unemployment for young Americans surges to record high of 52 percent
- Business leaders blame Obama for high unemployment rate
- Ten ways that Obama stimulated the economy with government spending
- Feds give $888,000 to Chicago public schools to teach Arabic language
- Why Obama’s government spending failed to keep unemployment below 8%
- Harvard economists explain how Obama’s spending created 10.2% unemployment
- Why is Obama spending trillions when government spending failed in Japan?
- Obama appoints SEIU union executive to create manufacturing jobs
- Obama restricts government contracts over 25M to unionized labor
- What lowers unemployment? Bush’s tax cuts or Obama’s spending?
- New Heritage Foundation study says cap-and-trade will kill jobs and the economy
- Understanding why Democrat policies don’t create jobs
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I agree that’s alarming, but I see no link to government of socialism…it’s simply a private entity being overly PC, nothing else. I doubt a single court in the US would say to a company that they have to keep lazy and unreliable workers, especially if you can prove they are worthless. Additionally, I know of no law that bars that lady from running her original ad, and I really hope she ignored their advice and ran it anyways.
LikeLike
Even without union inteference, it isn’t all that easy to terminate the employment of a goldbricker. Simply saying that they don’t work hard enough to suit the employer isn’t good enough for labor boards. What’s worse, the employer might still have to pay for unemployment benefits in some cases, depending on how the adjudication goes.
But I agree about running the ad anyway.
LikeLike
My overriding goal is that everybody has MULTIPLE job offers and can choose the one they like. These restrictions hurt people who are looking for jobs. A man needs a job to be able to do anything. We have to stop government from taking people’s jobs by meddling in the private contracts of employers and employees. If one employer mistreats an employee, he can leave and find a new job. When you attack the employer, they are less willing to hire.
LikeLike
Wintery, you do live on Earth, don’t you? In 2010?
In all your posts about unemployment, you blame the current US administration (which has been incumbent one year). Where I live we have gone from zero unemployment (or as near as makes no difference), to 12% in less than 2 years. And we’ve had more or less the same government since 1997.
This global recession, caused by unregulated capitalism, has resulted in loss of confidence worldwide. “Multiple job offers” are a thing of fantasy at present. People are taking the jobs they can get. Employers are picking and choosing because they can. Corporations are moving to lower cost economies, in other words exploiting the workforces of countries who don’t yet know any better, only to move on once they do. And they love people like you, who preach that their country of origin has forced them to leave due to policy. It gives them a guilt-free license to raid the resources of another part of the world – those gosh-darned liberals made us leave!
Regarding the subject of the post itself; while this is clearly PC gone mad, I’ve not much sympathy with this woman. Recruitment companies made a fortune over the past 10 to 15 years (the length of time she claims to have been in the business). They did so because labour demand outstripped supply for a long time before everyone got too greedy. People hopped between jobs every few months because they could, and the recruitment business encouraged this for obvious reasons. Now that times are tough, they want to find someone or something to blame, because they are actually incapable of doing their jobs when things get a little bit difficult.
LikeLike
Yes, your view is called socialism. It’s the view of the Democrats who took over Congress in late 2006, and that is why we are here now. They believe the things you said and acted on them, and now we have a real 17% unemployment rate. When Bush was president, he acted in the opposite way and we have an unemployment rate below 5%. QED.
The global recession was caused by the Fed setting interest rates low and by the Democrats forcing banks to make loans to people who could not afford them in the name of equality. Bush and McCain tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and they were both blocked by Senate Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those are the facts from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
As far as outsourcing, it’s caused by hostility to business from the left. Companies ship jobs overseas when it becomes to expensive and too regulated to keep the jobs at home. Socialism causes outsourcing. Period. People on the left don’t understand economics. When you compare Bush’s unemployment rate with Obama’s you understand what works and what doesn’t. Tax cuts work. Happy talk doesn’t work.
Where you live you have a 12% corporate tax. It’s called Celtic Tiger. Probably the best damn economy in the West. Certainly the lowest corporate tax rate.
LikeLike
The best damn economy in the west? Now I know you’re dreaming. So I challenge you to come and find a job here. The Celtic Tiger is dead, killed by an over-reliance on excessive property valuations by greedy developers hand-in-hand with the banking system, who one would have thought would know better. But no, they were all pigs at the same trough. Oh and guess what else? We’re stuck with it for now, unable, like our closest European neighbour, to lift itself out of recession by devaluaing its currency. Britain’s economy is now on the up, we’re still dancing to the tune played by France and Germany.
LikeLike
Well, you know best, but Heritage says you’re the 5th freest economy in the world. And the best in the West.
LikeLike
Maybe, but my point is that no matter what Heritage says, it’s not doing us any good right now.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to hear that, Boo. I hope things get better soon for everyone.
LikeLike
What happened since the lowering of corporate tax rates is apart from the benefits derived from lowering those rates. Ireland flourished as a result of lowering the corp rates. The problems now are a result of something different.
LikeLike
Yeah I know what you mean, when I compare Bertie Ahern’s rate of unemployment (close to zero percent – the man who is self-described as a socialist) with Brian Cowen’s (nearing 12%, two years later) I just have to think……..oops, same party, same government, both former finance ministers; gee, perhaps it’s caused by something outside of government policy, with the assistance of government “watchdogs” looking the other way, because things were just too darn good.
LikeLike
“Simply saying that they don’t work hard enough to suit the employer isn’t good enough for labor boards. ”
I believe many states are at-will – they can fire you for a good reason, a bad reason or for no reason at all (assumes no contracts in place), so if my boss doesn’t like me, they are in the legal “right” to fire me.
The problem arises on why they didn’t like me – was it because I was making them look bad by doing a lot of great work (they can fire me legally) or was it because I’m gay or black or in some other way different, then it becomes illegal, oddly enough.
But just because they can legally fire me because my level of work is far superior to my managers and it makes my manager look bad doesn’t mean then that they should get off scott free – allowing that leads to situations of extreme nepotism and is destabilizing to the greater economy, hence the reason labor boards will and in my opinion, should make the company pay unemployment benefits (in cases like I just described – if you are truly a bad employee, and it doesn’t take much to document this, you should get no unemployment benefits)
LikeLike
What you present sounds like that which can be dealt with through the legal system. However, there are two problems with that. First of course is the cost of suing, and secondly is why one would wish to stay with such an employer. But, one can always find an anecdote to counter a general argument, but that doesn’t dismiss the argument.
LikeLike
You read the article on the “rubber rooms” for delinquent teachers in New York, yes?
LikeLike
I assume you’re talking to me – no, I haven’t.
LikeLike
Here you go. Obama was elected with help from these unions.
LikeLike