Wednesday, April 11, 2012

American Workfarce


(Click cartoon to read the teeny punchlines!)

Just when it seemed that Barack Obama had already done all the damage he could possibly do to the job market, his administration has come up with a new regulation which achieves a rare trifecta: it decreases job opportunities for most people, it creates new legal nightmares for potential employers, and it will decrease productivity in almost 200,000 U.S. companies!

Specifically, any company which does business with the government will be required to make sure 7% of their workforce is disabled...and the requirement applies to every department within the company. So for instance, a trucking firm which transports hazardous materials could be punished if they refused to hire a driver because he has a seizure disorder. Think we're kidding? The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which will enforce the new edict, already heard that case - and punished the trucking company for putting public safety over cultural sensitivity.

But how will employers find this rich new vein of disabled job applicants? Simple! Job applications will allow people to self-identify as "disabled"...and if they're subsequently not hired, the employer will have to document why.

Fortunately, thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act, nearly anyone can qualify as disabled these days: cancer, heart disease, or clinical depression will almost guarantee you a key to the executive washroom. As will conditions like "significant trouble standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, or interacting with others."

Put another way, if you're a lazy, petulant, dumbass you can no longer be turned down for a job!

And if you're a current, healthy employee? Well, you may want to think about arranging a little chainsaw "accident" for yourself in the very near future.

Cost of implementing this nuttiness is estimated to be as high as $1.8 billion... and that's not counting the decrease in productivity that could result from making sure that 7% of the workforce arrives in a short bus.

Despite the jokes, Hope n' Change wants to make something very clear: we're absolutely in favor of hiring the disabled and "differently abled" whenever their skills are a good match for a job. Just like other forms of discrimination, the disabled shouldn't be rejected because they look different or (initially) might make others uncomfortable.

But this regulation goes way, way beyond that. It will kill jobs and further hamper an economy which is already hanging by a thread.

Yes, the disabled deserve a fair chance.

But so does a disabled economy.



Obama will provide Human Resource Agents to help employers meet the new quotas.
-

35 comments:

drjim said...

This "president" (or is that "present"?) is hammer nails into America's coffin just as fast as he can!

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

As long as Turdboy can siphon off a few more "compassion" votes, anything goes. Actually, it's icing on the cake if it harms the economy. After all, that has to be destroyed to be rebuilt in his image and likeness.
He is such a vile POS he almost makes me think I might vote for Romney. Almost.

Shang said...

This is disturbing on so many levels. Congress is compliant though. 95% of its employees are mentally disabled.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Astounding.
Of course, in a perfect world, companies would give a big middle finger to the Gummint (the dad Gummit!?) and quit doing business w/ them. realistically, most of them can't afford to just walk away from contracts.

How the heck did they come up w/ a 7% solution, anyway? Is that a statistically relevant number? Or did they just dig deep, pinch hard, and pull it out of thier
>er<
Thin Air...?

Reminds me of when I used to work at Chrysler, many years ago - we (contractors) were never SURE there was a "quota" system applied to hiring practices, but we knew that the unemployment rate for black Jewish women of Hispanic descent was pretty much 0...
And there were certainly a lot of people who never seemed to DO anything but occupy a desk and read the paper...
Frustrating as hell to those of us who just wanted to do a good job and get a little ahead...

Emmentaler Limburger said...

The issue for me is similar to the issue I have with other affirmative action mandates: imposing a quota, that quota being based on the government's already proven flawed data regarding population make-up. And we've already seen how "bidness" responds to such quotas by who they promote within the organizations (with the expected results in many cases). Nothing against minorities of any sort, but government enforced reverse discrimination has long been proven NOT to be the answer.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@drjim- He builds the coffin and provides a nice warm corpse. He's a real Renaissance man.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I can't tell you who to vote for, but we've all got to vote against Obama. Right now, it's looking like Romney is going to be the guy, and I can live with that. Especially if he picks the right veep.

@Shang- As I went through that laundry list of "disabilities" like difficulties (or unwillingess) in thinking, communicating, or getting along with others, my first thought was "isn't this the playbook the government is already hiring from?"

@Pete(Detroit)- I'll believe the Feds are serious about change for the disabled when there's a guy (or gal) in a wheelchair on every basketball team.

I think the 7% figure supposedly represents the percentage of disabled folks in the general population - but the government itself won't meet the new standard, having only about 5% of employees (certifiably) disabled. And government hiring of the disabled has declined under Obama. Oops! (And have you seen the recent photo of the workers at Obama's campaign HQ in Chicago? About 200 smiling kids in their 20's: 199 of whom are white...and one Asian. No blacks, and no signs of anyone with a disability.)

@Emmentaler- No question, this is a quota system with all of the nightmares that come with it: reams of record keeping, inappropriate hires, the constant threat of lawsuits, and on and on.

And like you, I've got nothing against a diverse hiring policy - but Affirmative Action is a bad joke that has hurt scores more people than it's helped.

And companies which do business with the government were already required to show "good faith" efforts to hire the disabled. So this new quota does little except to declare - quite clearly - that there is no bond of faith between this administration and employers.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ Stilton:
Why do you believe the VP matters? Does Joe Biden matter? Any president who lets the VP set policy is a weak president. The VP is there to gavel the Senate and step in if the president bites it. As for exciting the base...do you really think Romney would pick someone who can actually achieve that? Who would it be?
I still contend that voting for Romney is asking the lions to eat you last. On the tray of sh*t sandwiches, that may be the least awful, but it's not worth throwing a party over.
If Romney wins, the gutless Repulicans will bend over forwards to give him anything he wants just because he's not Obama. How is that good for us given his history?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- Much of what you say about veeps is true, but Dick Cheney didn't sit on his hands in the position.

And yes, I think Romney is going to try to find someone who can excite the base and articulate the conservative message - and that's not unimportant.

Might Romney choose some plain vanilla non-entity? It's possible, but let's don't start mourning until it happens.

Some people (who don't like Romney) say to give Obama another four years to do so much damage that the American people will have to wake up and vote for a real conservative in 2016. Personally, I think that's nonsense. We must deny Obama any more Supreme Court picks, and we must pull the teeth out of Obamacare quickly or I doubt this country can be saved. We don't have another 4 years of wiggle room whether we're enthusiastic about Romney or not.

John the Econ said...

I've always argued that we could put an end to most of our nation's ridiculous labor laws by forcing them upon professional sports. Instead of the best of the best on the fields, courts, or rinks, let's require every team to field at least 7% disabled players all the time. This, in addition to all of the other "non discrimination" rules that ordinary employers are required to comply with, like racial quotas. That should make NBA & NFL much more interesting, wouldn't you think? Forget Tebow, Manning, & Brady; I wanna see a near-sighted, 1-legged Jew as quarterback for New England next year.

Of course, professional sports teams are exempt from such regulation for the simple reason that it would painfully illustrate the folly of such laws, and the costs that they impose upon performance. If I were President, I'd see that such laws are applied to everybody, or nobody.

But there's one industry that won't be hurt by this regulation; It's massive stimulus to the plaintiffs bar, eager to sue any company that they decide isn't hiring for every disability. I mean, why shouldn't airlines be hiring near-sighted epileptic pilots? Those planes fly themselves anyway, right?

Once again, Obama provides fodder for my argument that he's working to collapse what is left of our economy. If it's bad for business, he's for it.

Watching my country continue down this path is causing me to be "clinically depressed". At least I'll still qualify for a mediocre job somewhere...

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ Stilton:
I agree 100% with denying Turdboy any more SCOTUS picks, but what do you know about Romney that gives you confidence he wouldn't pick equally terrible liberals? With Mittens we are right back to "hoping" things work out. His history tells us we have little to hope for. Like I said, on the tray of sh*t sandwiches...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- You're correct that this will be the gift that keeps on giving for America's trial lawyers. Now, the most inept idiots in America can file (and perhaps win) lawsuits if they're not hired and they have a hammer toe or a kinetic rectal pressure disorder (Pfarter's Syndrome).

@Angry Hoosier Dad- Am I confident in Romney? Nope - other than that I'm confident there is no one worse in America for the job of president than Obama. But that being said, I am hoping that he could pleasantly surprise us. And yes, "hope" is just that. But without that hope, this webcomic wouldn't be here - there would be no point.

rickn8or said...

One thing this latest decree from the pResident does is move the cost of maintining some of the disabled from the government to the private sector. And turn them into taxpayers.

Why, it's just MADE of win!

CenTexTim said...

Words fail me...

I take that back. There is one word that comes to mind: "Kafkaesque."

John the Econ said...

Oh, an aside: I am happy to report that contrary to my posting from last week that I was wrong about my prediction that the first "Black" president of the United State would not be a liberal Democrat, that I was wrong about being wrong.

This occurred to me after hearing an exchange yesterday regarding a person who had a Hispanic mother and white father who had been told that it was improper (and perhaps illegal) that she had registered herself as "Hispanic" in her employment file. The woman retorted to the indignant PC-HR drone that if that was in fact the case, then Barack Obama could not be "black" either, or America's first "Black President.

So my prediction still stands.

Mike Porter said...

AHD: Can't help but agree with Stilton in that America cannot withstand another four years of these evil bastards. Even if we manage to limit the destruction to the one term there is still plenty of damage in need of repair for years to come. Giving this traitor another four years would be tantamount to national suicide. And in all honesty, I had pretty much given up hope until I heard that the fifth circuit spanked his DOJ asshat in front of God and everybody. Say what you will about the motives of Judge Smith in all of this, but for a moment I glimpsed a future in which Lady Liberty just might survive.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Here's my opinion on voting for Romney: A vote for Øbama in 2012 is a vote for no voting in 2016 and beyond. We, as a country, will have shown our hand, and worrying about federal judge/supreme court appointments will have been obviated. The tyrants will settle in, lock, stock and barrel - after all: the electorate will have shown them that that is what is desired.

It is my fervent hope that the same wasn't true in 2008, but November is still too far off to be absolutely sure...

Again, as I've said many times in the past: we can limp along under a squishy RINO. If Øbama gets back in: stick a fork in us. We're done.

(Oh, and I can think of several others who would actually be, at best, on par with Øbama as president. Hordes of them. Starting with most sitting in congress today, then moving on to the likes of jackson, farrakhan, sharpton, matthews, couric,...)

Colby said...

7 percent shouldn't be so hard to reach. After all, THEY claim they are at 99% already.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for disabled folks getting a fair shake and as many breaks as possible, but I don't think it's a great idea to have a Parkinson's patient assembling helicoptors for the Army or rifles for the Marines.

When you think about it, you hafta wonder why this nonsense only effects companies that do work for the gubmint. You know damn well BO and his minions would rather require EVERY employer to comply. Maybe somebody with a brain told them they couldn't do that??

Suzy said...

Wonder who's going to get the postal worker who is dyslexic....

Pete(Detroit) said...

Suzy, that would be my carrier - or was a few years ago. I routinely got mail for my neighbors. One woudl think the ability to accurately get the mail to the correct address would be part of the job, no?

And hey, John the Econ - whatchya got against us near sighted types? Just because I can hit a golf ball further than I can see it does not mean I'm not a worthy person.
>snif<
and not like I hit 'em all that FAR...

pryorguy said...

I think Mitt's a little squishy, too...but I cannot recall a time when I voted that I felt completely sure of anybody in another prez election than I do about Romney. It's all about the same. I mean, how can we be sure? All politicians will do and say whatever to get into office! Obama's gotta go...thats the main thing...a great place to start on a recovery!

I think right now, every one of us would be pretty disappointed in McCain had he won, not realizing the bullet we dodged if he had beaten obama! Maybe now more people will pay a bit more attention after obama's 'rape and pillage' of America!

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@priorguy: Unfortunately, there remains too many that don't see his performance for what it is. And those who do, but are cheering him on toward their goals...

BS Footprint said...

Obama: The Post-Rational President!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@rickn8or- Theoretically, you're right; this could take some people off of disability payments and make them into taxpayers. But will that make up for the $1.8 billion that businesses lose in compliance costs? I doubt it.

@CenTexTim- Kafkaesque is the perfect word.

@John the Econ- As I've said before, Bill Clinton was the nation's first white "black president," Obama is the first half-black "black president," and the first totally black president has yet to be elected (and might well be that conservative you mentioned).

@Mike Porter- It's these little flickers that give us hope. Plus, if I've got to choose between "hopeless" and a scintilla of hope, I'll do it. And right now, that's a vote for Romney.

@Emmentaler- I'm with you on this one. I'm afraid that if we lost this election, there won't necessarily be a "next one."

@Colby- Indeed, disabled folks should have every opportunity for which they're legitimately qualified. But when artificial quotas potentially put people at risk (from that "hazardous materials" truck, for instance) then the government is acting insanely. Which, of course, can't legally preclude them from holding down jobs.

@Suzy- All of us.

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm sure John didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

@Pryorguy- I had much less enthusiasm for McCain than I do for Romney...and I voted for him anyway. Trust me, casting ANY vote against Obama in November will be a pleasure I've yearned four years for.

@Emmentaler- But outside of the stupid people and evil people, who does Obama have in his base of support? Granted, there's a slew of them...

Chuck said...

And divided we fall …

And the left is doing EVERYTHING they can to divide us. I can’t even count the ways anymore: Race; Income; Religion; Sex; Sexual Orientation; Locale; Health; Weight; and the list goes on.

You are right: if we blow this election (if it even happens …) we can kiss goodbye to another. But, just how much fraud will it take to get Ø reelected? We already know the Attorney Generals personal ballot will be given to anyone. And Ø got on the ballot fraudulently in at least one state in 2008 (so did Hillary). How much integrity is left in the system? Enough?

I’m not so sure. And then there is the fact that …

… we worry about the inane. What really matters?

If you accidentally damage a Bald Eagle egg, you’re looking at prison. Abort a baby (or 50 million babies)? – That’s okay.

And our choice for 2012 will be between a candidate that will defend abortion on demand and one that believes a child that survives the abortion process should be left to die. That’s some choice we’ve got there. I wonder what God thinks …

Just asking …

Unknown said...

The only solution to this farcical requirement is to have employers hire all the vets being forced out due to budget cuts. Anyone who's been in a combat zone has some hearing loss or other loss that should qualify as a disability. And you have to believe these folks know teamwork and have a great work ethic!

Pete(Detroit) said...

I think he DID, Stilt - he singled us out 2 to 1 against the one legged and 'da ebil choos!'

Fortunately, I am an evolved, rational person, and realize that "You Make Me Feel" is the BIGGEST lie. I am in charge of my feelings! I am in charge of my own orgasm! (Terri Garr's character in "Tootsie")

Anyway, moving right along...
The ONLY problem I can see w/ hiring Vets, Unkn, is the same issue I have w/ any other 'disabled' person - 1) can they DO the job, w/o undue hazard to themselves or others, 2) were they given EQUAL opportunity, or SPECIAL opportunity?

But then I'm an insensitive bastard like that.

(for the record, I'm in full agreement w/ others here - people SHOULD be encouraged to become full, contributing members of society, to the best of their ability / desires. But not at the expense of my safety)

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Chuck: I can't speak for God, but we're sounding an awful lot like myriad other societies that he saw fit to do away with, aren't we? But show him one or two, lad. Just one or two...

@Pete: You can hit a golf ball? I can't AFFORD to hit a golf ball - not that I have anything against the wee little dimpled orbs (Saw a really incredible high-speed series once of a golf ball hitting a wall at 100MPH. Just about flattened out, but sprung back to its usual form and continued on in the opposite direction. You'd never believe how much flexibility is there! Looked like a drop of water! http://www.snotr.com/video/4715/Golf_Ball_Hitting_Steel Amazing, them poor, defenseless bludgeon targets! I wish I were so resilient...)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Chuck- You've got several hugely important themes in your comment. But the one I'll focus on is this: in the face of huge, serious, urgent, and very real problems we focus on the inane. When the voting populace would rather be entertained than informed, we're screwed. And yes, we may very well be there already.

@Unknown- That's a fantastic idea. And let me additionally applaud the fact that while I'm sulking about this idiotic policy, you're thinking of ways to turn it into something good.

@Pete(Detroit)- The pinball machine in my head starting ringing (in a good way) when you made the distinction between equal opportunity and special opportunity. One is good, the other is bad. Unfortunately, it's the bad one that is implemented every time.

@Emmentaler- I'm already on the record as not being able to speak on matters of religion - but I will posit that God won't need to lift a finger to get rid of our society unless things change. Wherever "free will" comes from, it will surely destroy those who don't exercise it with restraint, responsibility, and selflessness.

Regarding golf, my entire experience is one bucket of balls on a driving range, and any number of miniature golf courses. I assume this lack of experience explains why Obama never calls to invite me to a foursome on the links.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Stilt: He doesn't invite you for the same reason he doesn't invite anyone else: it ain't about us. Only him. That you're a conservative who sucks at golf notwithstanding. And, to be truthful, the only time I ever set foot on a golf course, it was covered in snow, and I had a tobaggan in hand. Closest I came to the pin? When I was a mere "ute," I was given a set of clubs a neighbor outgrew. Never quite figured a use for them...

Pete(Detroit) said...

Emmentaller - Thanks! that was probably the coolest thing I've seen all month!

Gang of One said...

While not exactly on the topic of the seven percent Obama wants legislate, this is not unconnected -- via Powerline blog inre: the mendacity of the Buffet Rule:
"So how about if the GOP responds to any legislation incorporating the Buffett Rule by seeing the Democrats their demagoguery and raising them with a couple of demagogic proposals of their own, in the form of proposed amendments? The Republicans could say, sure, we’ll go along with the Buffett Rule if you Democrats will agree to the Reynolds Tax, a 50% surtax on the increased incomes of former government officials when they move into the private sector, working for the same companies they once regulated. Or Republicans could offer an amendment incorporating the Clooney Rule, based on the fact that actors and actresses are such advocates of higher taxes: a new, 80% tax rate on all income in excess of $1 million earned by acting in any film or theatrical production. Or they could counter with the K Street Rule, an 80% tax on all income in excess of $1 million earned by lobbying. Or the Ambulance Chaser Tax, an 80% levy on all lawyer contingent fee income in excess of 10% of a recovery. (That one would provoke howling from coast to coast, from one of the Democrats’ prime constituencies.)"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/how-should-republicans-respond-to-the-buffett-ploy.php

This should also be levied against athletes with absurdly large incomes, yes?

Stan da Man said...

Only the crippled athletes

Suzy said...

Chuck...don't forget, though, if you're an INDIAN you can kill bald eagles in a religious ceremony....

Airotciv said...

Weird bill. i always hoped most people exercised common sense when applying for jobs. Most, but not all apparently...

Case in point, I have seizures and take meds and the like for it. But I still do get them occasionally. It just happens. At my jobs (yes, plural, 2 part times), there's no driving involved. I use public transport. All of that fun stuff. But I wouldn't apply for a job where that's a big thing because of my condition, I wouldn't want to hurt someone.

At the same time, people are judgmental. There wasn't a clause in the bill stating 'if they're qualified for the position and don't endanger things'? Though you did just say the bit about the truck driver...

Ugh. Headache now. Stilton, stop the comics, you're making me think! You're hurting the moderate! (Just kidding love these things, don't you ever stop them, please!) :)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Airotciv- Believe me, you've got an advocate right here: two members of my immediate family have needed treatment for seizure disorder (happily, one no longer needs it) and so I'm completely against unfair restrictions on work. But as you said, to the extent that it affects the safety of others (and even concerns like productivity) it's a fair and legitimate consideration for employers.

And I'm glad you like the cartoons here and find them thought-provoking. I frequently wish that we could all drop labels like liberals, moderates, and conservatives and just honestly talk about what our shared goals are, what's working, what isn't, and how to make more good things happen for more people (or create an environment in which people can make those good things happen for themselves).