I will bet you that Representative Darrel Issa would not be pleased to discuss this aspect of (the lack of) jobs market.
Unemployed need not apply, some companies saying
(By Tony Pugh for McClatchy)
I read this highly disturbing article that was republished in the 17 February 2011 edition of the Spokesman-Review. The only suitable jobs applicants are those currently employed and who may wish to simply change jobs? That’s one way to keep a tight control over who gets to actually hold down a job in this nation today. The only qualification for being hired into a new job, is if you already have one.
What Mr. Pugh did not address and of course the advocates for the unemployed did not address, was the actual discrimination that certain companies (not actually named in the article) bring to their “hiring needs.” The discrimination based on not wishing to invest in the training and placement of the jobs applicant. If you are already employed in the field that is desired by these companies, then they don’t have to do the necessary investment in training. The article went at length to disclose the potential for discrimination against minorities, older workers, and the disabled. How about, continuing the discrimination against the unemployed, those who were laid off as jobs were shipped overseas?
And why advertise for jobs where some of these companies are concerned, if they have an issue with actually hiring an unemployed person? I would have thought, that was exactly why you advertised jobs: to put the unemployed back to work! For what it is worth, this Tony Pugh article was a major exposé. It can literally call into question the actual “new hiring” in the last few months. Are we sure that was “new hiring” or jobs placed with a foreign workforce and on the home front, prospective employers merely swap employees between them?
So, I would like to cut to the anti-reg business interests who were definitely asked to come and testify before an anti-reg House of Representatives recently about how all those regulations are real “jobs killers.” If this article is accurate, it is not the “command and control” of government that is killing jobs, it is the businesses themselves. Also, cut to the recently held Republican Political Action Conference. Where it was argued that the worst job losses in history occurred on President Obama’s watch. Actually, I’d like to refer these GOP blow hards to this article. The worst job losses in history occurred because of the practices and policies of the marketplace, irrespective of who the president is. Just as I have absolutely no problem with referring them to the excuse making for why unemployment remains so high by one Representative Darrel Issa.
With revelations like this, I have cause to wonder why people aren’t taking to the streets to peacefully protest the myriad corporate offices across the country for their unwillingness to significantly reduce unemployment in this country? Why the GOP and their “TEA Party” wing would prefer to shift blame rather than look at the stark facts? But, it is far easier, isn’t it to shift blame. That way, the Republican party and their “TEA Party” wing that have tied themselves so closely to the business interests and the multi-millionaire Koch brothers, won’t be under any obligation what so ever to face with any honesty plus a certain sense of responsibility, why exactly this nation has yet to recover from the GW years of economic doldrums. Let us blame it on the president, let us blame the Democrats. But as Pugh’s article shows us, the sole blame resides with the businesses themselves.
So, following is a history of excuses for why unemployment remains at an unacceptable 9% rather than steadily dropping. And under the circumstances will also make future employment for our young people that much more difficult: NAFTA/CAFTA and the favored nation trading status including China. You have to wonder just how much money big business must have poured into making these trade agreements that would ultimately be passed through Congress and signed by [any] president including President Clinton himself? And it just may be, for the companies or major corporations who wanted to benefit from these trade agreements, that in order to recoup their investments, soon after went to hiring cheaper labor that these trade deals certainly provided them with an opportunity to do. But their excuses for doing so involved the environment, workplace regulations, expensive workers and their health care and retirement demands that cut significantly into yearly corporate bonuses, stock options, paying off politicians, buying favorable legislation, and making multi-millions per year as the head of the corporation. Then through this literal creation of an uncertainty in the marketplace, businesses can then refuse to hire because of this uncertainty in the marketplace. Which insures a continued uncertainty in the marketplace. Senator John McCain back in 2008, taxes are why jobs won’t return to the U.S. Taxes were cut during the GW years, jobs vanished wholesale during his tenure in the oval office. So is the real argument that corporations should pay no taxes what so ever to return jobs to this country? Corporations currently provide only 13% of total revenue to the federal coffers. They however get back in subsidies much more than this from the same federal coffers. If subsidies to keep them within the states and employing Americans aren’t sufficient, then how are we to presume that reducing taxes would encourage them to hire Americans? The “we can’t compete” unless we can hire illegal aliens or outsource the jobs. A word of warning about using such an excuse where China is concerned, they’ll be happy to do the work, and pirate at the same time the original designs and blueprints of the foreign company. Which means that the American based business is no longer in a position to compete. But ultimately, neither can they compete if they look for creative excuses to keep Americans unemployed. Those without a paycheck can’t by the product. Capitalism in this country has been replaced by corruption, greed, and excuses. Time to quit politicizing this as GOP v Dems in general or RPAC v Obama in particular. Capitalism in this country ended a long time ago, and by no less than the active desires of the captains of industry to unilaterally end it.