Define 'job'! 

The most popular means to "increase" JOBS statistically by governments is to reduce the bar on what 'job' is defined as and then create incentives to businesses to hire two people for what used to be 'one job'.

For example, to create the illusion of job creation, governments redefine a 'job' to be something like, "any employment of a person who works 20 hours per week". Then, an incentive is offered to businesses to hire more part-time workers rather than full-time workers by permitting those who do to not require paying benefits to those workers as might be for those with more than 20 hours per week. This certainly 'creates jobs' but reduces the average pay per 'job'. It also penalizes the part-time worker in that they now require 2 or more jobs just to survive. 

So your confidence in more 'jobs' by Trump is likely misleading of the real benefits.

....AND, who is doing the 'approval'? Those with the 'jobs' or the employers getting the extra benefits for 'saving' more money by the exploitation?

Those who are poor who may approve are due more to the relative contrast of having no job versus SOME job, regardless of how unsatisfactory such conditions are. And those doing the hiring OF those on the bottom are from those who embrace these kind of conservative-friendly laws. So the poor person granted at least SOME job is going to be forced to favor them (the "Right") over those from the "Left" who prefer hiring in exclusion of these people for some reason or other. [Today the exclusionary factor is an inappropriate genetic bias of those associated with the most conservative culturally biased: Euro-white males, or other stereotypical associations based upon  irrelevant external appearances.