Make a Difference

[Athena]

Darn, that should be "a real chance for power of the people, instead of "change". But if we move from apathetic to a strong and united voice, that would be a good change.

 

I do things to exercise my political muscle that I usually think are as futile as a flea climbing up the leg of an elephant with the intention of rape, but this action might have a real effect, because companies are sensitive to public opinion. I think it has real potential if enough people get involved, because the media is responding to this conflict and large numbers of people get media attention. This action is a whole lot better than rioting in the streets and burning down buildings, and we need to take it, to assure sympathy stays with the people who have been cheated by those who managed our economy poorly. Instead of being apathetic as power and wealth is accumulated in the hands of a few.

 

 

 

Two weeks ago, when we heard that major online job sites like Monster.com were hosting ads that said the unemployed need not apply, we were outraged.¹How are we supposed to solve our employment crisis if the only way to GET a job is to already have one?!

 

So together, USAction/TrueMajority members gathered more than 26,000 signatures asking these companies to stop hosting help-wanted ads that discriminate against the unemployed. We also ran Facebook ads that targeted their staff and executives asking them to refuse these ads

 

Well, one of the companies called back, but not with the answer we'd hoped for: Monster.com sent us a "cease and desist" letter, demanding that we stop mentioning them in our campaign^.2

 

It's not going to work – Monster's threats only prove that we've got their attention. And now, we're starting to get the attention of major media outlets like the Huffington Post and Daily Kos too.

 

Help us show these corporations we will never "cease and desist" speaking up for the unemployed - click here to sign the petition or tell your friends.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Athena

[JohnB]

So what percentage of ads had this proviso? Unless the proportion was large it strikes me as people using a storm in a teacup to exercise their righteous indignation.

 

I can only presume that the view is pretty good from the cheap seats. If truemajority or whatever are really so incensed over the thing then maybe they should start their own job placement website, run along lines they prefer. Or would that be too much like hard work and it's so much easier to sit back and tell others how they should run their businesses?

[Athena]

So what percentage of ads had this proviso? Unless the proportion was large it strikes me as people using a storm in a teacup to exercise their righteous indignation.

 

I can only presume that the view is pretty good from the cheap seats. If truemajority or whatever are really so incensed over the thing then maybe they should start their own job placement website, run along lines they prefer. Or would that be too much like hard work and it's so much easier to sit back and tell others how they should run their businesses?

 

I think there is an error in your logic. It is like saying the response to someone killing a baby, is to give another child life. When what needs to happen is make it very clear, killing babies is wrong and intolerable. That is what the action is about. Making it clear that what some job placement services are doing is wrong and will not be tolerated. Competing with them does not achieve the desired goal of clarifying what is right and what is wrong.

[JohnB]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about job ads, not about killing babies.

 

Just so that I've got this right. You think that having job selection criteria that you don't agree with is like "killing a baby" and you think there is an error in my logic?

 

Here's the deal. I, as an employer have the final say in the criteria I use to employ someone, providing I don't discriminate on the grounds of age, sex, race or orientation which is fair enough. However only a complete twit wouldn't discriminate (if you want to call it that) on the basis of "work history", and whether a person is currently employed is definitely part of their "work history".

 

If you don't like this, you are perfectly free to put your house on the line and start and run your own business as you see fit, using whatever selection criteria you choose. You are also free to start your own employment agency and accept or reject advertisements on any basis you choose. If you won't "ante up" and put your own future on the line, then sit back down in that cheap seat and enjoy the view.

 

However, whether or not you do these things will never give you the right to tell me how to run my business or to dictate that my selection criteria have to pass your approval. There is an old saying that "He who pays the piper calls the tunes". If it's my money and the futures of myself and my employees at stake, exactly what makes you think that your opinion is worth diddly squat?

[rigney]

This is more to Athenas questioning than your reply john B. And as much as I hate using it as a cane, but both Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccioni, "well" at least Guccioni would turn over in his grave to hear her make such a statement. Can you imagine either wanting to cull a hundred or even a dozen prospects with no photographic or writing experience in their background, employed or not? Well, Ansel Adams or Hemingway, perhaps!

Edited August 26, 2011 by rigney