Lobbyist for the Unemployed ?

Lobbyist for the Unemployed ?

At the moment the unemployed are considered to be just another special interest group - Actually not even considered special - just unemployed and in need of jobs and help to survive. Many politicians now consider unemployment insurance as another form of welfare. To get the attention of the politicians in Washington D.C. and draw attention to the needs of the unemployed would take a social movement. A social movement represents the demands of a large segment of the population.

At this time the unemployment insurance exhaustees (99ers) are about 6 million strong and the unemployed are maybe 15 million strong and adding the underemployed and those who have given up looking there are 30 million people or more who need help now. These 30 million people need to express their discontent with the existing political, economic, and social system. Marching is a way to express dissatisfaction or advocacy, but lobbying is also an effective means to get things done in government.

Women and African Americans were able to organize and get the right to vote, but unemployed Americans can't even find a lobbyist who will take our case to Washington. The unemployed appear to be somewhat apathetic or powerless to help themselves while they sink into poverty and despair. Leaders are shunned and there is little effort to establish an organization to address the needs of the unemployed because it would involve fundraising and hell-raising. Many of us are falling out of the safety net and it is going to be a hard landing. United we stand, divided we fall.

There is enough blame to go around for HR 589 getting stalled. Those to blame are the Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama. This is like the story of Nero who supposedly played on his fiddle while Rome burned. President Obama is fiddling around while the lives of the unemployed are being destroyed.

Let's toy with the idea of a lobbyist for the unemployed. The lobbyist would already have a name that politicians already knew and would listen to. The usual reply is: "No one in their right mind would represent the unemployed. That is why no one has stepped forward."

Is it time that the unemployed hire a lobbyist to represent them? Whenever that question is asked someone replies: "The unemployed have no money for a lobbyist." How much would it cost to hire a lobbyist and a small staff?

Other questions include: Who would they represent? Where would they be located? What affiliations would they have? Are they in it to get a name or to help? Wouldn't a lobbyist defeat the cause because the unemployed should not be represented? Should the person be elected? The list goes on...

How much would it cost an unemployed person to contribute to a lobbying effort? A dollar? If millions contributed a dollar, then there would be millions for a lobbying effort.

The next question is: Who is this lobbyist and where do I send a check?

I agree. We do need someone to lobby for us. There are grassroots activists out there who would take up our cause, the problem is how do you get the unemployed to come together and ask for that help?

If I werre a director or employee at a local workforce development center , Id offer a seminar for all UI exhaustees assisting them with the current issues at hand, and also include their own involvement with their personal ideas/suggestions in what they need and want, and then that would properly allow for a 'meeting' place and for us to coordinate together ideas into action in our advocacy and organizing as it wold allow for much more smooth process to take effect.

Its just very difficult in my state though when several of the missions of the workforce centers really aren't designed and operated for fully assisting and setting out what they intend to do, and is like pulling ears out of someone to even get basic information. They do have large conference type rooms from seminars, and that would draw a group of us together one would have to imagine.

Not that it's nearly enough, but the AFL-CIO and other labor groups lobby for the unemployed as well as for other "regular guy" interests. I just wanted to let you know because lots of people are not aware that they are doing this, and I am in the loop for some of their activites, so I'm aware of some of the good things they are doing.

<Joan's union soapbox>If you think that unions only fight for their own, please think again. I happen to believe that unions are our single best hope for fighting back on many levels...in fact, I think they are all we have left, and if they go down, we are screwed.</soapbox>

Note: I am not a representative of the AFL-CIO, any union or even a union member, just an office worker schlub who is a big fan of unions.

We can all thank unions for the 40 hour work week (weekends), fair wages, banning child labor, wide-spread healthcare, collective bargaining, work-place safety laws, workers comp, sick days, survivor benefits, overtime pay, medical leave act and more.

The unions are concerned with the unemployed, but that is not their main focus. Even the American 99ers Union has a focus on the 99ers and the issues facing them: http://www.american99ersunion.com/

There are individuals such as Greg Rosen who have done much to articulate the issues facing the unemployed 99ers. Advocates on this website and others have helped organize the information and have tried to keep those who are interested informed and active.

The unemployed don't have the money to travel to Washington D.C. to a march and may not even have the gas money to go down to their local city hall. We are up against giant corporations who can pour money into the pockets of politicians to fight against the unemployed. There is no jobs legislation that will help the large number of unemployed anytime soon. Many politicians feel like it isn't even the responsibility of government to help the unemployed and would rather get rid of unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, HPRP and any program that helps the poor. Their main objective is to ship jobs overseas through off-shoring, fund more wars and destroy the American dream. There is nobody speaking against these policies in an effective manner. Letters to the editor reach a few readers and letters to Senators and Congressmen get tallied and thrown away.

Even President Obama acts as if he is powerless. He is no FDR.
There are now over 30 million unemployed and underemployed Americans, which is enough to be a social movement. What we need now is leadership and an organization that will work on our behalf.

We know what the problem is: Unemployed Americans.
We know some of the causes: Off-shoring of jobs, legal and illegal immigration, free trade, automation
We know possible solutions: Legislative actions that reverse the damage.
Who will help us do this? A lobbyist and national organization.

Until that time, there are so many of us, and there is so much knowledge and talent- if we keep in touch with each other, share ideas, strategies, and keep on contacting not just our representatives, but anyone (person, official, organization, journalist, etc), and remind them that HR 589 exists, is needed now, not later, for sheer survival. If it isn't feasible, an equivalent has to be created and passed ASAP. We need to make them understand that the number of available jobs doesn't come close to matching the # of job seekers. Jobs must be created, and people need to survive until they get work.

I did send an email-letter to Jesse Jackson Jr. - desp had shared the story and you tube of Congressman Jackson's resume campaign to bring the resumes of the unemployed to the floor- I invited him to visit this site, read what people have shared, and to read MaryKay's very great letter that was signed by all. I then asked him if he would consider doing another resume campaign, or something similar.
Maybe he would consider lobbying for the unemployed? I actually see a lot of good candidates here, too. Lacking in lobbying experience, maybe, but....who better ?

I am an employment lawyer in Philadelphia, and I spend a lot of time tracking unemployment and employment law trends. I have become convinced that an Affirmative Action Plan for the unemployed is the best way to tackle this horrific situation.

Please go my Blog, consider my thoughts, and cast your vote.
http://employmentlaw101.blogspot.com/2011/06/affirmative-action-for-unemployed.html

Any lobbyist needs something to lobby, and I think Affirmative Action is the way to go. What are your thoughts?

John A. Gallagher

Thank you for taking the time to post here and for showing interest in helping the unemployed. We want more than anything to get back to work.

I am not sure at this point what will get businesses to start hiring again.

What Is Affirmative Action and How Can It Help 99ers??

An Affirmative Action plan is one that requires employers to hire X number of unemployed applicants for every Y number of employed applicants that it hires. I guess you would call it a quota....

Right now, there is a strong suspicion that unemployed workers are not being considered, much less hired, for many job vacancies (rather, many employers are looking to hire only people who are currently employed).

An Affirmative Action Plan would make it illegal for companies to engage in such selective hiring (if that is what they are doing). Going forward, employers would have to regularly report to the US Government that they were hiring at least X number of unemployed workers for every Y number of jobs.

Back in the 70s, Affirmative Action plans were used to insure equality when it came to things such as admission practices to universities. The term has a bad connotation because it seemed that a lot of times more qualified (white) applicants were being denied just so less qualified (black) applicants could be admitted so colleges could meet their quota. Even so, it was in part quite a successful plan.

In any event, requiring companies to hire a certain percentage of unemployed workers to meet a quota would not have the same type of stigma...

I read a lot of 99ers stuff, and many seem to be focusing on getting additional unemployment benefits. I understand that, but it kind of feeds right into the mentality of people who claim that unemployment is just another form of welfare. Besides, what good does it do to get another 3 months of welfare if one's long term goal of getting back to work is only being stifled by a longer period of unemployment.

If you ask 99ers if they would prefer 3 months of UC benefits versus a job paying them a decent wage, I think almost all would say the job. The concept of Affirmative Action appeals to those 99ers, I would think.

Please go to my Blog and Vote: www.employmentlaw101.blogspot.com

Thanks for explaining that.

You are correct in assuming that 99ers if had a choice would rather a job opposed to more benefits.

A point I feel the need to make however is that while we would rather a job, it just hasnt been possible and an affirmative action plan would take a good amount of time to get through congress.

Another point is, people are suffering right now. We're talking Millions. I dont know of anyone whos job search was stifled because of unemployment benefits. That is one of the biggest misconceptions about the long term unemployed. Most of the people advocating for more benefits for 99ers have been without income for a year, no benefits, no job. so to say unemployment benefits stifles our job search is untrue. It would really help if people understood that.

We are focusing on more benefits, because jobs arent available. We are fighting for survival here. When advocating, we always push job creation or ask that some sort of job spurring legislation be passed as well HR 589.

Please understand, once one reaches 99erville, options become very limited. you begin to have to live minute by minute rather than pay check to pay check. We feel no hope and are petrified. Most cant even buy food.

Economists are saying that in order for businesses to hire they need demand. If people arent spending money to purchase goods then there is no need to hire. We need stimulative legislation thats going get people out there again spending money.

I hope your not offended by my response here, but we need it to made clear to people who have never experienced this and who think benefits are welfare, that we are hanging by a very thin thread. It is not about getting the next UE check, its about survival. This (ie HR589) is what we need to survive until jobs are created.

I do value your opinion and your advice. I also think you have a great idea there. I do urge you to read through the topics on the forum and see the desperation people are feeling on daily basis.

We even had a member commit suicide and have a thread dedicated to him. Its crucial that people understand we dont want to live the rest of our lives on benefits. We just need some more help until there is employment.

johnagallagheresq wrote:What Is Affirmative Action and How Can It Help 99ers??

An Affirmative Action plan is one that requires employers to hire X number of unemployed applicants for every Y number of employed applicants that it hires. I guess you would call it a quota....

Right now, there is a strong suspicion that unemployed workers are not being considered, much less hired, for many job vacancies (rather, many employers are looking to hire only people who are currently employed).

An Affirmative Action Plan would make it illegal for companies to engage in such selective hiring (if that is what they are doing). Going forward, employers would have to regularly report to the US Government that they were hiring at least X number of unemployed workers for every Y number of jobs.

Back in the 70s, Affirmative Action plans were used to insure equality when it came to things such as admission practices to universities. The term has a bad connotation because it seemed that a lot of times more qualified (white) applicants were being denied just so less qualified (black) applicants could be admitted so colleges could meet their quota. Even so, it was in part quite a successful plan.

In any event, requiring companies to hire a certain percentage of unemployed workers to meet a quota would not have the same type of stigma...

I read a lot of 99ers stuff, and many seem to be focusing on getting additional unemployment benefits. I understand that, but it kind of feeds right into the mentality of people who claim that unemployment is just another form of welfare. Besides, what good does it do to get another 3 months of welfare if one's long term goal of getting back to work is only being stifled by a longer period of unemployment.

If you ask 99ers if they would prefer 3 months of UC benefits versus a job paying them a decent wage, I think almost all would say the job. The concept of Affirmative Action appeals to those 99ers, I would think.

Please go to my Blog and Vote: www.employmentlaw101.blogspot.com

Its UNEMLOYMENT INSURANCE we paid into it for years. Its not WELFARE!
Make sure you put that in your PAID blog.

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

johnagallagheresq wrote:What Is Affirmative Action and How Can It Help 99ers??

An Affirmative Action plan is one that requires employers to hire X number of unemployed applicants for every Y number of employed applicants that it hires. I guess you would call it a quota....

Right now, there is a strong suspicion that unemployed workers are not being considered, much less hired, for many job vacancies (rather, many employers are looking to hire only people who are currently employed).

An Affirmative Action Plan would make it illegal for companies to engage in such selective hiring (if that is what they are doing). Going forward, employers would have to regularly report to the US Government that they were hiring at least X number of unemployed workers for every Y number of jobs.

Back in the 70s, Affirmative Action plans were used to insure equality when it came to things such as admission practices to universities. The term has a bad connotation because it seemed that a lot of times more qualified (white) applicants were being denied just so less qualified (black) applicants could be admitted so colleges could meet their quota. Even so, it was in part quite a successful plan.

In any event, requiring companies to hire a certain percentage of unemployed workers to meet a quota would not have the same type of stigma...

I read a lot of 99ers stuff, and many seem to be focusing on getting additional unemployment benefits. I understand that, but it kind of feeds right into the mentality of people who claim that unemployment is just another form of welfare. Besides, what good does it do to get another 3 months of welfare if one's long term goal of getting back to work is only being stifled by a longer period of unemployment.

If you ask 99ers if they would prefer 3 months of UC benefits versus a job paying them a decent wage, I think almost all would say the job. The concept of Affirmative Action appeals to those 99ers, I would think.

Please go to my Blog and Vote: www.employmentlaw101.blogspot.com

Its UNEMLOYMENT INSURANCE we paid into it for years. Its not WELFARE!

Of course people would rather work.

I have read through the site, and really appreciate your thoughts and comments. 90% of my clients are unemployed, so I have some idea of the pain. And, I certainly understand that people want to work.

The problem is, many people who vot on things like HB 589 don't necessarily feel the same way. Yes, it wil take a while to get an Affirmative Action Plan in place, and I understand the crucial aspects of HB 589. But, if employers are making conscious decisions not to hire unemployed workers, then something is needed 4 months down the road.

I guess that is my point....Right now, there is nothing. As I recently posted on my Blog, the issue is not that there are not jobs out there - recently, statistics were released saying there were more jobs posted on-line then at any time since May 2005! Yet, despite their efforts, many unemployed people are not getting interviews, much less jobs!

Its a crime, and Congress must address it. We cannot have people wanting to work being denied any consideration because they are unemployed. That is why I believe an Affirmative Action Plan is what is required.

johnagallagheresq wrote:I am an employment lawyer in Philadelphia, and I spend a lot of time tracking unemployment and employment law trends. I have become convinced that an Affirmative Action Plan for the unemployed is the best way to tackle this horrific situation.

Please go my Blog, consider my thoughts, and cast your vote.
http://employmentlaw101.blogspot.com/2011/06/affirmative-action-for-unemployed.html

Any lobbyist needs something to lobby, and I think Affirmative Action is the way to go. What are your thoughts?

John A. Gallagher

There is a bill in the House, sponsored by Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, HR 1113, that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include discrimination of the unemployed.

http://www.unemployed-friends2.org/f84-pending-legislation-hr-1113

Here is the text of that bill, "The Fair Employment Act of 2011":

H.R. 1113 - The Fair Employment Act of 2011
Sponsor: Representative Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Co-Sponsors: 16
Referred to the House Ways & Means Committee on Education and the Workforce March 16, 2011


H.R. 1113 - To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of unemployment status.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.1113&congress=112&size=full

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

johnagallagheresq wrote:What Is Affirmative Action and How Can It Help 99ers??

An Affirmative Action plan is one that requires employers to hire X number of unemployed applicants for every Y number of employed applicants that it hires. I guess you would call it a quota....

Right now, there is a strong suspicion that unemployed workers are not being considered, much less hired, for many job vacancies (rather, many employers are looking to hire only people who are currently employed).

An Affirmative Action Plan would make it illegal for companies to engage in such selective hiring (if that is what they are doing). Going forward, employers would have to regularly report to the US Government that they were hiring at least X number of unemployed workers for every Y number of jobs.

Back in the 70s, Affirmative Action plans were used to insure equality when it came to things such as admission practices to universities. The term has a bad connotation because it seemed that a lot of times more qualified (white) applicants were being denied just so less qualified (black) applicants could be admitted so colleges could meet their quota. Even so, it was in part quite a successful plan.

In any event, requiring companies to hire a certain percentage of unemployed workers to meet a quota would not have the same type of stigma...

I read a lot of 99ers stuff, and many seem to be focusing on getting additional unemployment benefits. I understand that, but it kind of feeds right into the mentality of people who claim that unemployment is just another form of welfare. Besides, what good does it do to get another 3 months of welfare if one's long term goal of getting back to work is only being stifled by a longer period of unemployment.

If you ask 99ers if they would prefer 3 months of UC benefits versus a job paying them a decent wage, I think almost all would say the job. The concept of Affirmative Action appeals to those 99ers, I would think.

Please go to my Blog and Vote: www.employmentlaw101.blogspot.com

Its UNEMLOYMENT INSURANCE we paid into it for years. Its not WELFARE!

Of course people would rather work.

I question your motives? Are you in it for the $$$$$$$$ If so go chase ambulances not UNEMPLOYED people!

One more thing, anyone who thinks the unemployed are waiting around for our "leaders" to help us really as NO idea how LITTLE they work. My hamster gets more done before 6am then could do in a month.

Sleeping under the stars and eating out of garbage cans does not sound too fun to me. Anyone who thinks this can shove it up their butt!

Love the hamster analogy. You are so right! These politicians are constantly on vacation or on a break. It is disgusting. What makes me mad is that they have perks and benefits and a good salary yet they don't work for me. Our "leaders" should not lead.