top of page
Worker's Civil Rights
Layoffs (Require Financial Proof)
Companies typically lay off their employees when the nation experiences an economic downturn. 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 in order to increase profits. During the Great Recession of America (2007-2009), companies laid off millions of workers even though many businesses weren't in financial trouble at the time.
For example, Microsoft laid off approximately 5,000 workers even though they had over $20 billion in cash. Other companies followed suit which further exacerbated the problem into becoming a deep 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 prevent 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 they were unable to make payroll in order to justify a reduction in their workforce. If this policy was in effect years ago, it could have prevented the snowball effect of mass layoffs that caused a major economic recession in the country.
Layoffs (Guarantee Job)
It is common after a layoff for employers to replace their former experienced workers with cheaper replacements. To protect the civil rights of workers at any age, companies should be required to rehire their employees who were previously laid off before they may find a replacement (essentially turning the layoff into a furlough).
Layoffs (CEO)
To prevent frivolous layoffs, legislation should be considered that requires the CEO of a company to be laid off with their employees. This will ensure that the executive did everything that was possible in order to prevent the layoff from occurring with 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 salary- 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 limits the availability 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 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 nation's economy as well. This is not only a domestic worker's civil rights issue but an international problem as well (c.f. World Trade for the possible solution).
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) may be worthwhile in applications such as assisting law enforcement and medical research, however, companies replacing their workforce with A.I. is a violation of a worker's civil rights. Legislation should be considered to restrict companies to use A.I. for a limited number of applications that doesn't replace their workforce.
Automated Interview
Many 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 issues (not skilled/overly-qualified/long-term unemployed, etc.).
For the latter regarding the long-term unemployed, the situation has gotten to the 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 laws exist to protect against discrimination to a certain degree, a better way of preventing such problems is to fully automate the interview process where the interviewer doesn't have direct contact with the applicant. The questions that are normally asked during the interview would be privately submitted to the applicant by email or postal mail. So, employers will be able to evaluate candidates to the same degree as before but without the possibility of discriminating against them since the correspondence is 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 currently working at the time.
To ensure compliance, the automated interview system should be required by the Department of Labor as a free but mandatory service for all businesses in the country.
All 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 automated 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.
Background checks may also be offered to ensure their uniformity and consistency throughout the evaluation process. When an employer is ready to move forward with a particular candidate, the system will send their offer directly to the applicant by their preferred means of contact.
In general, a federal-mandated interview system by the Labor Department will ensure that businesses will not be able to discriminate against others, while guaranteeing that job applicants will be treated in a fair and equal manner throughout the interview process.
bottom of page