[Skybird]

If I were an employer owing a company that were my own, I would insist on my right to know whom I employ. I also reserve the right to refuse somebody for whatever reason I have on my mind - it is my company. I may be willing to give somebody a chance who was released from priuosn - but the decision to do so I demand to be mine, and mine exclusively. I also reserve the right to accept or refuse somebody on basis of another characteristic of his/hers. It is my company. My wage I pay them. My responsibility in every regard. Ifd the state wants me to employ the poieple he tells me to employ, then I suggest the state runs a state-owned economy and in those companies does what he wants.

In Germany, and EU-wide, they are preparing a variation of the Californian idea, that is that companies should accept anonymous candidates for assessment to employ them or not. No gender, no age, no nationality, no migration history shall be mad eknown to the emploeyer, he should only look on the claimed qualifications.

But in many types of work, espoeically wshere teamwork is needfed and team chemistry is an important factor, this is an incapacitation of the employer. It also means to reject an employer the choice whether or not he wants to support the EU-wide migration polices by accepting or refusing migrants as candiate - and this is the real direction this EU proposal is aimed at.

In Germany, according laws are under preparation.

If I were a company owner, to me the conseqeune would be clear. I would not grow and employ new people, thus would refuse to create jobs, or IU would remove my business to poutside the EU or even would shut down my business alltogether. I do not accept neither socialist 5-year-plan-economies like the EU seems to plan for all of Europe by isntalling a europe-wide economy govenrment that neutrlaises the autonomy of national states in their economic decisions, nor dictatorial incapacitation of this type that tries to force me to support policies of the EU that I reject, and refuse to support: on foreign migration, for example. To employ a migrant, to me would depend on two things, my personal imrpoession of the individual in question, and also on his cultural background and palce he came from. None of these critzerions would rule for or against anything in advanmce, but I insist on being left the freedom to reflect on both. If a state wants me to not care for whom I employ (and then cannot get rid of anymore due to our excessive social protection legislations), then all I can say: I sell my business, and you, dear ideological superstate, can run all economic business all by yourself - I'm out of here.

This all, California and Germany/EU, is just another example of ideologists' attitude: leave people the illusion to have the free choice to keep them calm and non-revolting , but if they do not chose the way you demand them to chose, then force them.

Spit.

It is also an open secret that excessive emplyoment protection laws prevent many jobs from being created in small family companies, because these small bhusinesses remain free and relatiovely independant as long as they do not have more than I think 9 or 10 employees. One more, and new legal obligations would partially incapacitate the runner of the business while nevertheless leaving him all the responsibilities, and would negate his ability to fire people again iof they do too much nonsense or do not fit into the team or the business runs bad and he canot afford to pay so many wages anymore. Often this is the case for small craftsman family businesses who try to treat their employees very fairly indeed - but they cannot afford to risk the ruin of all the company and all employess because they let one more employee in and thus fell under difefrent laws that prevent them to fire employees once business runs bad or the person in question misbehaves or is not trustworthy or whatever.