Unemployment In The Workplace Reflection

Throughout the semester, we have examined various structural features of our capitalist society and environmental pressures on government policies that contribute to rising unemployment levels. When many Americans see the word “unemployment” on the front paper of The Wall Street Journal, they often picture blue-collar factory workers in the Rust Belt losing their jobs to cheap sweatshop labor in Southeast Asia. While these images might reflect reality in some manufacturing towns (particularly in the 2000s), we often neglect to consider marginalized groups (such as LBGTQ employees) who face additional threats of unemployment due to societal factors such as hiring discrimination based on gender stereotypes. Not only do these individual and their

He believes that the modern American gay right movement “began after World War II and played out alongside the fight for the Civil Rights.” For more than half a century, there was no formal protection for LGBTQ employees. Instead, they were either forced to “remain in the closet” or discouraged from participating in the workforce. For example, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10450 in 1953 which “banned lesbian and gay federal employees” and “fired over 5,000 workers under the suspicions of being homosexual.” I believe that these acts of discrimination is a cause of unemployment because LGBTQ workers are barred from participating in the work force. I think this is very interesting because it shows how societal values and norms like fear can influence unemployment and government legislations. I found this to be very similar to the Red Scare during the Cold War where anticommunist sentiments not only threatened job security for thousands of people but also the fear of unemployment became an intimidation tool to conform people to normality. In addition, Prof. Leonard mentioned that many states had “long prison sentences” if you were found to be homosexual. The historical background allowed me to understand the

Leonard talked about the history behind why Congress added “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Right Acts and its impact on the interpretation of the courts. Congressman Howard Smith “added sex and the amendment carried” but “very little was said about why they added it.” Therefore, over the subsequent decade, there were mixed ruling on what Congress meant by “sex.” One early Supreme Court case ruled that “discrimination against pregnant women did not count” so Congress responded by “amending Title VII to include it.” However, when LGBTQ employees sued, the courts said that “Congress did not intent to include them because nothing was ever said.” I have frequently seen this argument about statutory interpretation in my previous labor law courses and I found it very interesting because it would be impossible for Congress to foresee every issue that relates to a bill and implicitly address them. Looking at Title VII and the Civil Right Acts, I think it relates to unemployment because it demonstrates ways in which workers can seek protection from unfair hiring and firing practices. However, I believe it is often slow to react to discrimination. For example, if you were fired because of your gender and you could not find another source of employment, you can file a charge with the EEOC but it could take up to months or years to have the paperwork processed and even then your case might not accepted. In these circumstances, I wonder what are