We do not need any more figures or statistics to tell us that we are on the verge of a double-dip recession. We may not be able to prevent that, but citizens can greatly decrease the negative effects if they have a job.

The problem is there is none. So Obama came up with a jobs bill, which, among other things, aims to reduce biases among the unemployed. Any company with at least fifteen employees should never turn down an applicant because of his unemployment status. If it does, it is considered unlawful, and the candidate has the right to sue and subject the company to litigation, where he can claim for damages.

What do we mean by bias?
How did this came to be? Some companies reject candidates’ applications because of their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and / or religious beliefs. This practice is considered illegal. It is against the law, and some are in direct violation to the provisions of the First Amendment.

Now many unemployed are allegedly chastising firms for not hiring them simply because, well, they are not previously employed.

At one point, Obama is right. If the claims were true, it does not make sense for a company to reject applications simply because they are unemployed. In fact, they’re looking for jobs because they have none to speak of!

On the other hand, it might bring deeper problems not only for the companies or potential employers but for the entire country as well.

First, it encourages the unemployed to sue companies that refuse to hire them even for a sensible reason. The threat of lawsuits and litigations can be brutally damaging to companies, especially small- and medium-sized businesses. Not only are they time-consuming and dragging, they can also be extremely costly. Most of all, these types of cases can tarnish the reputation and the brand the company is building.

In relation to this, firms may be forced to hire unemployed applicants, even if their resumes are less than stellar or worse their work history is very poor. Any inferior-performing employee is always a liability to a company.

What should they do then?
The jobs bill of Obama was paved with good intentions, and surely there are provisions that are beneficial for the business industry, especially in increasing job creations.

But it may need some tweaking. For one, the bill should be very clear on the definition of the word “unemployed.” Is he out of the job because he has been laid off, or is he always terminated? How long is he out of work? What steps did he take to look for a job?

Second, there must be boundaries, limitations, or exceptions. Businesses should also be protected from unnecessary lawsuits especially on grounds of lackluster employment history, lack of adequate skills, and termination from his previous work.

Definitely, there is an immediate need to churn out jobs to boost economy once again. But to pass a jobs bill that may have a lot of loopholes and costly potential consequences doesn’t make sense to the country either.

Looking for a job? Check out our CAREER section!
You won’t leave empty-handed!