Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Government Knows Best...when it comes to deciding who you should hire.

House Bills 4887, 4926, 4927 would prohibit employers or potential employers from failing or refusing to hire an individual for, among other things:

  • having a particular body type or degrees of physical fitness

  • having a known or believed illness or health condition

  • having a bad credit history

In other words, the "at will employee" is slowly going the way of the buggy whip. State government does not want to allow you the freedom to hire and fire employees at will or without cause. Soon, an applicant who was turned down for a job, even though he may have been less qualified than the individual who did get the job, will be able to sue the employee for "not hiring me because he thinks my ears are too big." And it will be up to the employer to prove that this is not why he did not hire the individual.

Bottom line: "at will" means "without cause". An employer should have the right to hire or not hire for any reason or no reason. Who would you rather trust to make decisions about who is best to help your business grow and prosper? Yourself or the government? It's a Core Principle, folks. Do you want MORE government or LESS government?

Most employers will hire the most qualified candidate. But if this legislation passes, they will have to deal with individuals who can manufacture a reason for why they were not hired and force the employer to incur huge legal fees to defend himself in court, wasting precious time and money, when he could be creating wealth and new jobs.


Jgillman said...

All of this begins with a simple government program with "good intentions"


Founded: July 2, 1965

With 2,600+ employees to abuse taxpaying businesses, )they keep quite productive

What it does: The EEOC enforces laws aimed at preventing illegal discrimination in the workplace, and it investigates charges of violations. The agency was given litigation enforcement authority by Congress in 1972.

Personal Story.. Brother in law hiring chemist has two choices, female Black, white male. Both have equally good qualifications but male chosen because of additional experience. Female black candidate hired because of EEOC interference, and pending lawsuit. (the EEOC can be used as a hammer by "victims" in the hiring process)

The EEOC would have lost in this case, but the project at hand was under a time limitation, and the cost of litigating is NEVER covered by the EEOC. (you pay your own bills Bub.)

Anonymous said...

I have a company in the security business. I have to run a credit check to make sure potential employees are not a risk to my clients. Now how do we handle that with this kind of nonsense.

RightMichigan.com said...

C'mon, Representative. Don't you know by now that government always knows best?