top of page
Worker's Civil Rights
Layoffs (Require Financial Proof)
When a nation experiences an economic downturn, companies typically lay off their employees in large numbers that can negatively impact the economy. This is often carried out even when businesses are not experiencing a financial difficulty at the time, and layoffs are used as an excuse to reduce the workforce. During the Great Recession of America (2007-2009), companies laid off millions of workers even though many businesses weren't in financial trouble to justify the loss of employment.
For example, Microsoft laid off approximately 5,000 workers even though they had over $20 billion in cash. Other companies followed suit that further exacerbated the problem into becoming a major recession for the country. In the end, many executives got away with violating their workers' civil rights by laying off employees without the financial justification for doing so.
To correct this, companies should be required to file an official form with the Department of Labor to prove their financial hardship prior to laying off their employees. Essentially, showing that the business was unable to make payroll in order to justify a reduction in its workforce. If this policy had been in effect years ago, it could have prevented the snowball effect of mass layoffs that caused a major economic recession in America.
To rectify past situations, businesses should be required to pay damages to those who were unfairly laid off if the loss of employment was unjustified. In another post (c.f. Victims Compensation), victims compensation is not only useful for resolving international offenses, it also applies for domestic issues as well.
In this case, if voters approve of the measure, the Department of Labor would be able to accept claims of victims compensation for those who were unfairly laid off. The process could be as simple as the applicant submitting their tax returns/W-2 forms to show their loss of income during their unemployment. Or, if such documentation is missing, the applicant's Social Security earnings record will be referenced instead. The Labor Dept. will then contact the former employer to provide evidence for the lay off (by showing that they were unable to make payroll), or they will be required to pay victims compensation for the difference in salary (since some victims may have accepted part-time jobs).
In America's case, the victims compensation effort should start from the 2007-2009 Great Recession period. The reason is that the number of people that were out of work during that time rivaled the Great Depression era, which is a once in a century occurrence, of where millions of people were unemployed over an extended time. As mentioned above, nearly every employer during that time laid off employees without the financial justification for doing so, which warrants the reimbursement. As for the statute of limitations, a pure democracy vote may override the rule for the sake of providing justice for those who were unfairly victimized by their employers.
Layoffs (Guarantee Job)
After a layoff, it is common for companies to replace their former employees with cheaper workers. To prevent this, companies should be required to rehire their former employees who were previously laid off before they may find a replacement.
Layoffs (CEO)
To prevent frivolous layoffs, legislation should be considered that requires the CEO of a company to be laid off along with their employees. This will ensure that the executive did everything that was possible in order to prevent the layoff from occurring for their company.
Unpaid Work
Not paying for overtime work is a violation of a worker's civil rights. Federal law should require payment for all work performed by employees whether they are salaried or hourly-based.
Non-Compete
Many companies require the newly hired to sign a non-compete agreement, or they won't be offered the job. However, non-compete clauses limit the ability to find work elsewhere, which is a violation of a worker's civil rights.
Employers may say that non-compete clauses are necessary to retain qualified workers, but that effort should be accomplished by offering greater incentives to their employees, such as higher pay and benefits. Legislation should be considered that makes all non-compete agreements null and void in value, and by doing so, reinstates a citizen's right to work.
Outsourcing
Outsourcing jobs to foreign countries not only harms workers by limiting their prospects, it also negatively affects the economy as well. This is not only a domestic issue regarding a worker's civil rights, but an international problem as well (c.f. World Trade for a possible solution).
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) may be worthwhile in certain applications, such as assisting law enforcement and medical research, however, companies that replace thousands of jobs with A.I. are violating their workers' civil rights. Legislation should be considered to restrict a company's use of A.I. to ensure that it doesn't harm the nation's workforce.
Automated Interview
Some people may have been discriminated against during a job interview without their knowledge. Examples are an applicant's appearance (height/weight/hairstyle/clothing), presentation (manner of speech/body language/facial expression), personal preferences (sports/hobbies/activities), and in some cases, work-related (not fully skilled/overly qualified/long-term unemployed, etc.).
For the latter regarding the long-term unemployed, the situation has reached a point where employers are bold enough to advertise that applicants must be "gainfully employed" at the time of their application. So, if a person is not currently working, they are automatically disqualified because they are unemployed (which is discrimination).
Even though certain laws exist against discrimination, they are ineffective and difficult to pursue legally. A better manner of preventing such problems is to fully automate the interview process where the interviewer doesn't have direct contact with the applicant. So, the questions that are normally asked during the interview process would be submitted to the applicant instead (by email or postal mail). That way, employers will be able to evaluate candidates to the same degree as before, but without the possibility of discriminating against them since the correspondence will be handled entirely without direct contact.
For the special case of not discriminating against the long-term unemployed, the applicant's employment history should be partially hidden from the hiring manager. That way, only the duration of previous employment would be known (e.g., 2.5 years at a particular job) and not the actual timeframe where it may be determined that the applicant is not working at the time.
To ensure compliance, the automated interview system should be offered by the Department of Labor as a free, but mandatory, service for all businesses in the country.
Job postings from every business will be listed on the Labor Dept.'s website, and applicants will apply online as well (or paper version). The federally mandated system will ensure that job applicants will not be discriminated against by sending employers only discrete information such as, "This is candidate #1's answers." No names, ethnicity, or creed will be provided so nearly all forms of discrimination will be prevented by the system.
Overall, a federally mandated automated interview system by the Labor Department will ensure that businesses will not discriminate against others, while guaranteeing that job applicants will be treated in a fair and equal manner throughout the interview process.
bottom of page