Where there are victims, there are always predators ready to profit from their desperation.
Consider the following email sent out in July, 2012, by Steve Poizner, former Republican State Insurance Commissioner of California (2007-2011).
Dear friends,
I wanted to share with you some news before my new venture – Empowered Careers – launches around the country….I’ve started this company to help address one of the key issues we face today — jobs. Our venture aims to close the skills gap through an innovative career development program — all delivered via the iPad.
The program is called “Empowered UCLA Extension” and it combines personalized career counseling with a UCLA Extension professional education from a live instructor who is an expert in his or her field.
It’s all designed specifically for baby boomers seeking to make a career change, get ahead professionally, or get back into the workforce.
* * * * *
Now, consider this passage:
“Using our Empowered app, the iPad will transform any adult’s living room into a modern day classroom or transform a park bench into a study group while the kids are at soccer practice.”
But transforming “any adult’s living room into a modern day classroom” will not compel those employers who refuse to hire to begin doing so.
Nor will it change the behavior of employers who:
- Will hire–but only on a part-time, no-benefits, minimum-wage basis;
- Continue to throw hard-working American employees into the street; and
- Move their companies to China, Mexico or Singapore.
And note that this program is aimed at those who can afford an iPad–and to shell out $9,800. This, says the website, “includes a one-time special reduction of $3,000 from our expected 2013 total program price of $12,800.”
So if you’re poor because you’re jobless, this program has nothing to offer you.
But America can end this national disaster–and disgrace.
A policy based only on concessions–such as endless tax breaks for hugely profitable corporations–is a policy of appeasement.
And appeasement only whets the appetite of those appeased for even greater concessions.
It is past time to hold wealthy and powerful corporations accountable for their socially and financially irresponsible acts.
This solution can be summed up in three words: Employers Responsibility Act (ERA).
If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an ERA would ensure full-time, permanent and productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.
And it would achieve this without raising taxes or creating controversial government “make work” programs.
Such legislation would legally require employers to demonstrate as much initiative for hiring as job-seekers are now expected to show in searching for work.
An ERAt would simultaneously address the following evils for which employers are directly responsible:
- The loss of jobs within the United States owing to companies’ moving their operations abroad—solely to pay substandard wages to their new employees.
- The mass firings of employees which usually accompany corporate mergers or acquisitions.
- The widespread victimization of part-time employees, who are not legally protected against such threats as racial discrimination, sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions.
- The refusal of many employers to create better than menial, low-wage jobs.
- The widespread employer practice of extorting “economic incentives” from cities or states in return for moving to or remaining in those areas. Such “incentives” usually absolve employers from complying with laws protecting the environment and/or workers’ rights.
- The refusal of many employers to provide medical and pension benefits—nearly always in the case of part-time employees, and, increasingly, for full-time, permanent ones as well.
- Rising crime rates, due to rising unemployment.
Among its provisions:
(1) American companies that close plants in the United States and open others abroad would be forbidden to sell products made in those foreign plants within the United States.
This would protect both American and foreign workers from employers seeking to profit at their expense. American workers would be ensured of continued employment. And foreign laborers would be protected against substandard wages and working conditions.
Companies found violating this provision would be subject to Federal criminal prosecution. Guilty verdicts would result in heavy fines and lengthy imprisonment for their owners and top managers.
(2) Large companies (those employing more than 100 persons) would be required to create entry-level training programs for new, future employees.
These would be modeled on programs now existing for public employees, such as firefighters, police officers and members of the armed services. Such programs would remove the employer excuse, “I’m sorry, but we can’t hire you because you’ve never had any experience in this line of work.” After all, the Air Force has never rejected an applicant because, “I’m sorry, but you’ve never flown a plane before.”
This Nation has greatly benefited from the humane and professional efforts of the men and women who have graduated from public-sector training programs. There is no reason for the private sector to shun programs that have succeeded so brilliantly for the public sector.

ABC NEWS, AMERICAN REVOLUTION, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, FACEBOOK, JOB CREATORS, LOS ANGELES TIMES, NEW YORK TIMES, PETER CAPPELLI, READERS DIGEST, REPUBLICANS, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, SLAVERY, STEVE POIZNER, TED RALL, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, TIME MAGAZINE, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT, WALLACE C. PETERSON, WASHINGTON POST, WHY GOOD PEOPLE CAN'T FIND JOBS
A SIGN OF UNEMPLOYMENT: PART FIVE (OF SIX)
In Business, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 20, 2013 at 12:01 amA nationwide Employers Responsibility Act would ensure fulltime, productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans. And it would achieve this goal without raising taxes or creating controversial government “make work” programs.
Two of its provisions have already been outlined.
Among its remaining provisions:
(3) Employers would receive tax credits for creating professional, well-paying, full-time jobs.
This would encourage the creation of better than the menial, dead-end, low-paying and often part-time jobs which exist in the service industry. Employers found using such tax credits for any other purpose would be prosecuted for tax fraud.
(4) A company that acquired another—through a merger or buyout—would be forbidden to fire en masse the career employees of that acquired company.
This would be comparable to the protection existing for career civil service employees. Such a ban would prevent a return to the predatory “corporate raiding” practices of the 1980s, which left so much human and economic wreckage in their wake.
The wholesale firing of employees would trigger the prosecution of the company’s new owners. Employees could still be fired, but only for provable just cause, and only on a case-by-case basis.
(5) Employers would be required to provide full medical and pension benefits for all employees, regardless of their full-time or part-time status.
Increasingly, employers are replacing full-time workers with part-time ones—solely to avoid paying medical and pension benefits. Requiring employers to act humanely and responsibly toward all their employees would encourage them to provide full-time positions—and hasten the death of this greed-based practice.
(6) Employers of part-time workers would be required to comply with all federal labor laws.
Under current law, part-time employees are not protected against such abuses as discrimination, sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions. Closing this loophole would immediately create two positive results:
(7) Employers would be encouraged to hire to their widest possible limits, through a combination of financial incentives and legal sanctions. Among those incentives: Employers demonstrating a willingness to hire would receive substantial Federal tax credits, based on the number of new, permanent employees hired per year.
Employers claiming eligibility for such credits would be required to make their financial records available to Federal investigators. Employers found making false claims would be prosecuted for perjury and tax fraud, and face heavy fines and imprisonment if convicted.
(8) Among those sanctions: Employers refusing to hire could be required to prove, in court:
Companies found guilty of unjustifiably refusing to hire would face the same penalties as now applying in cases of discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and disability. Employers would thus fund it easier to hire than to refuse to do so. Job-seekers would no longer be prevented from even being considered for employment because of arbitrary and interminable “hiring freezes.”
(9) Employers refusing to hire would be required to pay an additional “crime tax.”
Sociologists and criminologists agree that “the best cure for crime is a job.” Thus, employers who refuse to hire contribute to a growing crime rate in this Nation. Such non-hiring employers would be required to pay an additional tax, which would be earmarked for agencies of the criminal justice system at State and Federal levels.
(10) The seeking of “economic incentives” by companies in return for moving to or remaining in cities/states would be strictly forbidden.
Such “economic incentives” usually:
(11) Employers who continue to make such overtures would be prosecuted for attempted bribery or extortion:
This would protect employees against artificially-depressed wages and unsafe working conditions; protect the environment in which these employees live; and protect cities/states from being pitted against one another at the expense of their economic prosperity.
(12) The U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor would regularly monitor the extent of employer compliance with the provisions of this Act.
Among these measures: Sending undercover agents, posing as highly-qualified job-seekers, to apply at companies—and then vigorously prosecuting those employers who blatantly refused to hire despite their proven economic ability to do so.
This would be comparable to the long-time and legally-validated practice of using undercover agents to determine compliance with fair-housing laws.
Share this: