Valerie Jarrett’s “Make The Long-Term Unemployment Problem Go Away” Maneuver

by Cultural Limits

Seriously, does this woman have a job description?

We all should have seen this coming:

In recent weeks, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett has reached out to chief executives seeking commitments that they won't discriminate against the long-term unemployed in hiring practices. The White House has scheduled an event highlighting the initiative for Friday.

Bank of America Corp., Siemens AG, Dow Chemical Co. and Deloitte LLP are expected to join Xerox, AT&T, Lockheed Martin and P&G, among others, in signing the pledge, which states they “are committed to inclusive hiring practices and pledge to remove barriers” to the employment of long-term jobless, according to a draft of the agreement.

Officials with Bank of America and Dow Chemical confirmed they have agreed to the pledge; officials from the other companies couldn't be reached for comment Sunday. SOURCE

Is this the only way this administration knows how to do things?  Via the “call the large donors with deep pockets” campaign route?  (And if they don’t cooperate, sic the IRS on them?)

Not that hiring practices in some corporations couldn’t be loosened, but what on earth makes Valerie Jarrett – or anyone else – think that a bunch of corporate CEOs signing a pledge not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed is going to put a dent in the unemployment problem?

Yes, those companies employ tens of thousands of individuals and positions have been left unfilled as the economy has slowed down, but not every locale with high unemployment has an office for Deloitte, or Xerox, or Siemens, let alone a Lockheed Martin that subsists on defense cost overruns.  Are the big corps going to pay relocation fees just to employ someone who has been out of work for years?

Then there is the question of matching skills to job requirements, and having to train people.  Employed or not, not all job seekers are right for the sorts of jobs that may come open.  If a person has been unemployed for three years and his or her skill set does not match those needed for an open position, is the company liable for discrimination if a person simply looking to switch jobs is hired?  (Or will the regime insist that people already having jobs in places where they are unhappy just be appreciative that they have a job and quit looking to make a change so the long term unemployment problem can be sidestepped.)  (Just wait.  It might happen.)

Call it what you will, plot, ploy, gimmick, maneuver: as a political issue, someone in the Obama camp wants to make long-term unemployment go away.  I’d say nice try, but really, this is one of the dumbest things they've done yet.  No policy was changed, no taxes cut, no federally mandated costs reduced, no movement in the money supply – all they have is a pledge not to discriminate against people who have been out of work for a length of time, and that’s not going to change a darn thing.  Especially when none of the corps pledged anything about actually doing any hiring.

Who is actually signing the pledge for these companies isn't mentioned in any of the articles.  In fact, other than about eight corps, there is not a list to be had.  Sooner or later directors and stockholders may have something to say.