On the other hand, while employees thought that workplace ethics was on the decline, they observed less misconduct overall.  Some believed that wrongdoers were laying low during the recession.  The center predicted that “as the economy gets better – and companies and employees become more optimistic about their financial futures – it seems likely that misconduct will rise and reporting will drop.”

Though it would seem that misconduct would increase during difficult economic times, not all misconduct is designed to increase profits.  The Center shows that the incidence of misconduct observed by employees rises and falls with the stock market.  The study suggests that employees are more careful when their job stability is more fragile to avoid sexual harassment and other misconduct.

Another finding focused on people who actively used social networking.  The report showed that they report more negative experiences in their workplaces, and were more likely to be retaliated against.  At the same time, they “show a higher tolerance for certain activities that could be considered questionable.”

The report strongly recommends that employers improve their commitment to ethics programs, end retaliation, and bond with active social networkers, who are more likely to witness misconduct, and generally to say positive things on social networking sites.

The study does not delve into the personal costs of the lack of job prospects for so many months.  But the International Monetary Fund tackled the “human cost” of long-term recessions, concluding that some of the advanced economies with relatively high incomes were the most affected.  Oddly, the United States suffered a large increase in the number of unemployed people, while Germany and Japan did not.  The study traces the likely lingering effects, from worker discouragement to lifelong diminishing earnings.  These in turn lead to negative health outcomes, including stress-related illnesses and the health implications of losing health insurance.

An interesting component of instability focuses on social cohesion.  Data from around the world supports the conclusion that the “personal joblessness experience translates into negative opinions about the effectiveness of democracy and increases the desire for a rogue leader.”  On a more personal scale, the loss of a job affects one’s ability to interact with co-workers on the job; at any place that requires cash; and any time one’s personal sense of worth is so attached to being employed that old friends or haunts are avoided.  Further, the additional burden on younger workers delays their independence.

The upshot is that people who became unemployed in the summer are able to move on to the emergency benefit program once their 26 weeks elapse.

The social security payroll tax cut was also extended for two months.  According to the Washington Post, the tax cut saved the average household $900 last year, but worries about social security’s solvency and independence increased with the move to lenghtn the tax cut.

There is no reason for a gender war over the small economic gains, and that is not the coalition’s purpose.  It is true that in a one-parent household the parent is more likely to be the mother, however, so the job loss affects multiple people. The coalition “HERvotes, seeks to  emphasize the importance of extending unemployment benefits, and providing affordable health insurance.

The first is called “My Next Move for Veterans.”  The website asks for the veteran’s military occupation code, and gives some guidance on jobs in the private or public sector that make use of the same skills.

The second is a veteran’s job bank, offering job listings from companies specifically looking for veterans as their next hire.

It is harder to prove discrimination in the failure to hire someone.  If a veteran is turned down for a job, he or she is usually not told why, and doesn’t have the inside knowledge to show it was veteran status.  Perhaps employers fear that the employees will be recalled to duty, that they came back damaged, that they won’t take direction from a non-military boss.  If these resources help veterans find employment, that would help us honor their service.

Many have emotional and mental health problems, in addition to the obvious financial issues:  joining social security early, with the lifelong diminution of benefits, facing foreclosures, giving up dreams of college education for their children.  The unemployed population reported more pessimism about the economy than Americans as a whole.  Still, more than half believed that they would find a job, some believing they’d find a good job, in the next year.  Part of the optimism seems to come from the third of those who are being retrained into a different career path.

The jobs bill would extend both monetary and job services benefits. It also has a detailed plan to allow states to offer training and other support to those who wish to become self-employed.

An interesting part of the bill addresses a key barrier facing the unemployed: they are unemployed.  The EEOC has been concerned about the overt preference given by employers to people who already have jobs; some ads state that they will only consider currently employed applicants.  To counter that preference, the jobs bill incorporates a carrot and stick approach.   First, it offers incentives to employers who hire someone who has been unemployed for at least six months.  Employers can get up to $4,000 as a tax credit.  Tax credits are always popular, since they are a direct subtraction from the tax liability, not just a deduction from income.

The stick is called the “Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011,” which would prohibit discrimination against the unemployed.   The EEOC would have enforcement authority, much like with other forms of discrimination.  This provision would eliminate job announcements that require current employment, and also ban employers and agencies from refusing to consider or hire someone on the basis that they are unemployed at the time they seek new employment.  Failure to hire cases are difficult to prove, since the employer rarely states why someone does not get a job.  Once the motivation is known to be illegal, such a statement would be an endangered creature.  Still, with large employers or those with loose lips, the pattern of refusing to consider the unemployed may have to change.

A new bill introduced in Congress would outlaw the use of unemployed status when hiring.  Under that bill, an employer would be forbidden from considering unemployment, or publicly stating that it would only consider currently employed people for job openings.

As with all failure to hire cases, proof will not be easy.  When someone is discriminated against on the job, the events of discrimination may be frequent, or at least witnessed by someone whom the employee knows.  When someone applies for a job, he is unlikely to have friends on th inside.  Unless the interviewer makes his bias obvious, the applicant can seldom tie his failure to get the job to illegal discrimination.

If the link can be made, though, this law does ease the damage proof.  The person who suffered the discrimination can claim $1,000 per day, or the actual damages from the failure to hire, along with compensatory and punitive damages.

Obviously Congress is busy now with other things (or so we hope).  But there is probably not a strong constituency against this bill, except that some factions don’t like any new causes of action.