Phrases such as "no unemployed candidates will be considered" and "must be currently employed" are now peppering job postings and want ads. This has the EEOC concerned that such policies likely will have a disparate impact on minorities.

Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, testified that the trend was unfair to applicants because “it potentially violates basic civil rights protections because of the disparate impact” on various population groups that have higher unemployment rates than average.

indeed, statistics show that Latins have a 50-percent higher unemployment rate than whites and that the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites.

In a written statement after the event, EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien said:

“Throughout its 45 year history, the EEOC has identified and remedied discrimination in hiring and remains committed to ensuring job applicants are treated fairly. Today’s meeting gave the commission an important opportunity to learn about the emerging practice of excluding unemployed persons from applicant pools.”

With discrimination filings reaching record levels at the EEOC, employers must be cautious in all policy decisions regarding employees and applicants. Though it is a not-well-concealed secret that many employers wish to see only employed job applicants, it is also imperative to observe all applicable anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

Personnel Concepts'  EEO Compliance Program will help businesses formulate a strong equal employment opportunity policy that will keep them in compliance with relevant anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

REALITY: Some banks are abusing the system by charging fees to use these unemployment debit cards. Try $20 for trying to “charge” too much on the card–an overdraft fee when all the bank has to do is refuse the charge. Or how about 50 cents to check your balance? A fee per transaction each time you make a withdrawal? Etc. Etc.

Here’s one man’s story:

Arthur Santa-Maria, a laid-off engineer who lives just outside Albuquerque, N.M., said he didn’t pay any fees the first time he was laid off, for several months in 2007. His unemployment benefits were paid by paper checks. He found a new job last year but was laid off again last fall.

This time, he was issued a Bank of America debit card—a “prepaid” card in industry lingo—but he was surprised to learn he had to pay fees to get his money. He asked the bank to waive them. It said no. That’s when Santa-Maria called back to ask how to check his account online. He logged on and saw that the call cost him a half dollar. To avoid more fees, Santa-Maria found a Bank of America ATM at a strip mall and withdrew $80 at no charge. When he got back to his car, he decided to take out the rest of his money—$250—and deposit it in his bank account.

Afterward, Santa-Maria logged on to his account and saw a charge of $1.50 for two withdrawals in one day.

As the accompanying graphic from Shadow Stats shows, what the media report is called the U3 unemployment rate–the officially unemployed shown on the bottom red line. When you add in “discouraged” and “marginally attached” workers, you get the middle line on the graph, which is trending toward 14 percent. Throw in areas that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t even consider–unemployed farm workers, the idle self-employed, and home workers–and you’re up to 18 percent on the top blue line.

That’s how I got my rather startling title for this post.

All told, 48 percent of U.S. companies downsized in 2008, and a whopping 60 percent are planning reductions in 2009, according to a Society of Human Resource Management survey.

Economists predict a total of 1.5 million to 2 million or more jobs will vanish in 2009, and the “official” unemployment rate could hit 9 to 10 percent, underscoring the challenges that new U.S. President Barack Obama will face and the tough road ahead for job seekers.

First, not all states run their unemployment programs the same or use the same eligibility standards. The result of this disparity nationwide is that some 37 percent of those laid off fail to qualify for unemployment insurance.

This hits the lowest paid the hardest since they are twice as likely to be laid off while only one third of them ends up receiving unemployment checks.

Problems with the system began in 1982 when the federal government started demanding interest payments on funds borrowed to cover state unemployment insurance needs. In 1986, unemployment income started being taxed while states were suddenly required to eliminate unemployment payments from those receiving pensions or Social Security even though they otherwise qualified.

Curiously, even though the working world is now computerized, the unemployment system still goes by pre-computer standards and doesn’t recognize a worker’s last quarter of earnings. So, for those laid off in December 2008, no wages from Oct. 1 on counted in the computation.

Say you were a recent college graduate who started working in June 2008. If you were laid off in December, only the wages and work weeks from June through September would count. This would disqualify you in many states.

Fear not as the Obamites have a handy piece of legislation to reintroduce called the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act. This act never made it out of the Senate the first time, even though Barack Obama was a sponsor, but chances are now good for its approval.

If enacted, the law would provide states with $7 billion to cover another 500,000 workers (works out to $14,000 per). An additional $500 million would be passed along to cover administrative expenses.

I’m not sure how this act modernizes unemployment insurance, but maybe there’s more language in there to patch up those cracks. Otherwise, it’s just a one-time payment.

Be that as it may, the piece is called “Meltdown 101: Unemployment by the numbers,” and it starts off by factoring in categories of unemployed and underemployed that the “official” figures excludes and comes up with a total unemployment rate for December 2008 of 21 million people, or 13.5 percent unemployed. That’s compared to the official rate of 7.2 percent, or 11.1 million.

If you want more details on how that figure was pieced together, just hit the hot link above, but what I personally found most interesting was a breakdown of unemployment by category, to wit:

DECEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY GROUP:

7.2 percent: Adult men
5.9 percent: Adult women
9.5 percent: Female heads of households
5.1 percent: Asians
6.6 percent: Whites
9.2 percent: Hispanics
11.9 percent: Blacks
20.8 percent: Teenagers
15.3 percent: Construction workers
17 percent: Agriculture workers
2.3 percent: Government workers

There is a wealth of other statistics and information available, so hit the ol’ hot link above. When I finally read to the end of the article, I realized that it had been taken from AP (without permission?) and was written by AP Business Writer Ellen Simon.