Trying to hire and they are all "Drawing"

[brin]

Good idea ... except the employment center would eventually get additional funding for T.V.'s , pool tables, video games, etc... etc... etc..

:laughing::laughing:blueriver you are right I should have thought of that...probably bingo too...:laughing::thumbsup:

 

[blueriver]

:laughing::laughing:blueriver you are right I should have thought of that...probably bingo too...:laughing::thumbsup:

Thanks ... I got one right!! I forgot one... High Tech Touch Screen computers so they can check on the status of the benifits without bothering the EMPLOYEE!! (Who would be in the smokeing section)

 

[gerard]

OK, I'm gonna put on the fire suit and throw a wrench in the gears.

While the idea of making people work for their unemployment sounds like a good idea, there's a couple of things to consider before firing off a letter to your local congressman.:laughing:

1) Insurance. Specifically workman's comp. Last I checked, it's mandatory. And it ain't cheap. Who's gonna pay it? The Gov.? That's just another way of saying you and me. Let's say it's only $5 a week per worker to insure. Doesn't sound like a lot 'till you multiply it times 10 million or so. Then it's a lot...:confused2:

2) Liability. Let's say Roscoe's picking up trash on the side of the highway to earn his $220 a week check. A car blows a tire and veers off the highway, hits poor ole' Roscoe and breaks his back and both legs. Roscoe hires prominent attorney who specializes in WC claims and negligent employer lawsuits. Demands $25 million for pain and suffering, 25 million for unsafe working conditions, and $25 million for his cut. State decides to avoid trial and negative publicity and settles out of court for $10 million. Pretty soon every ambulance-chaser out there is jumping on the bandwagon and there's a lawsuit for every cut,scrape and twisted ankle out there. (Don't laugh, when someone sues McD's for millions over too-hot coffee, or slips on a wet floor and wins $5 million 'cuz there wasn't a sign.) Once again, who really pays for it? You got it, John Q. taxpayer.

3) Job availability/placement. Picking up trash and mowing grass and other physical labor jobs are fine if you're a strapping healthy young man or woman. But what if you're a 56 year-old man with a weak heart? Or some other physical condition which limits your physical exertion or range of motion?

4) Not allowing someone to vote because they're drawing unemployment would only bring every civil rights, minority, and political group out of the woodwork to protest and sue everybody in sight, further increasing the cost in legal battles. (Once again paid for by me and you.) And frankly, it ain't right from a constitutional POV. Every legal american has a right to vote and if you try to take that right away without just cause, i.e. "felony conviction", then I just couldn't agree with that. Just because someone gets laid-off and draws is not a justifiable reason to give up their rights as a legal citizen.

5) Someone has already said that employers are the ones who pay worker's unemployment. Shouldn't that employer have first dibs at the former employees "free labor"? He paid for it.

6) Discrimination, ****** harassment and EOE. I guarantee you that unless you have an equal division of ethnic and male/female workers in any given job, somebody's gonna sue. I can see the headlines now... "ACLU asks:Why are only hispanics and blacks working on the road cleanup and landscaping crews?" Why are the older whites sittin' in air-conditioned offices filing papers? "Single young mother of two files lawsuit against state for ****** harassment in the workplace!".( I don't know if any here are familiar with harassment suits, but if you tell a woman she looks nice in the workplace, that can be construed as harassment)

Now I know some of these examples may seem ridiculous or far-fetched, but there are 100's if not thousands of instances just like all of these in our newspapers everyday. And like another poster stated, when you let the gov. handle things, they usually spiral out of control in cost, red tape, and unnecessary legislation.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually agree with the concept of individuals earning their benefits, but having an idea and implementing it in a fair and cost-effective way are two totally different creatures.

The only way to tame this beast is to bring jobs back to this country. The public has to stand up as consumers against the outsourcing of jobs and importing of inferior,cheap products.

If the public refused to do business or purchase products from American companies that lay-off american workers to open call-centers and assembly plants in foreign nations, you would quickly see those businesses re-opening on american soil.

We also have a critical lack of motivation and pride in our workforce. People need to step up and do the right things when it comes to working a job and providing a quality product or service. Work ethics, Attendance, Punctuality, Attention to detail and quality seem to be sorely lacking for so many people today. I don't care if I'm working for $5 an hr. or $50 an hr. I'm going to do the job to the best of my abilities and leave my attitude at the door. I learned a LONG time ago that showing up (on time and sober) is 95% of success.

Uncle Sammie ain't gonna solve this. No politician's gonna save us. Only we as workers AND consumers can effectively restore our economy and ultimately our nation as a world leader in innovation and quality of life for it's citizens. The keys are still in our hands.:thumbsup:

A common theme throughout your response is tied to litigation and tort costs. Now don't go and get your mittens in a wad if you're a tort lawyer, but the tort lobby are one of the main spoliers of any kind of meaningful reform and probably the greatest contributors to increasing the cost of living in this country. We have 10 times the lawyers per capita that japan does. They need work so what do they do? Chase the money and sue the deep pockets. Costs trickle down to you and me. Federal judge just allowed a lawsuit to be filed against a video game manufacturer by a customer who became addicted and played the game for 12 hours a day for over a year. Really? This is a legitimate suit?? Unless we get back to more self reliance, self responsibility, and less litigation, things are only going to get worse until we reach critical mass and those that are able to just leave. It's happening now from state to state. In the future it will happen from country to country.

 

[two_bit_score]

Anyone ever think that all these benefits, i.e., incentives to not work, is intentional? Think about it.

Of course it is. And, some people *&%# up so much stuff that it really is cheaper to pay them to just stay out of the way than fix what they mess up on a job. Hate to say it but sometimes I think it is really the intent of the welfare system.

 

[Cat_Driver]

I don't think you're paying enough. The top paid stagehand at Carnegie Hall makes $442,599 per year, plus $107,445 in benefits and deferred compensation. See Unions are for the"common" people

Average Stagehand At Lincoln Center Makes $290,000 A Year

 

[MikeD74T]

There is a company in central Florida that has 600 openings at $10 per hour and can't fill the positions. Another company has interviewed and hired people, but they never show up for work. - - Gotta get rid of the incentive not to work. I spent some time with a group of folks to see what a family on welfare would have to make to cover the benefits and taxes. It came to about $40,000/year :mur:

So they need $40K to make a living & anyone wonders why they don't jump on $10 per hour jobs that earn them $20,400 a year??? MikeD74T

 

[MikeD74T]

I don't think you're paying enough. The top paid stagehand at Carnegie Hall makes $442,599 per year, plus $107,445 in benefits and deferred compensation. See Unions are for the"common" people

Average Stagehand At Lincoln Center Makes $290,000 A Year

Carnegie Hall tickets probably cost about the same as Red Sox tickets and some ball players get more than that per game. Every man is worth whatever the market will bare. MikeD74T

 

[Rob2010]

There is a difference between being paid for talent and having to extort your pay.
I.e. Red Sox player and Union hack

 

[MikeD74T]

There is a difference between being paid for talent and having to extort your pay.
I.e. Red Sox player and Union hack

Please explain as both are union positions, or do you simply think baseball has social redeeming value? MikeD74T


Major League Baseball Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Salary Cap
As of 2009, Major League Baseball is the only major professional sports league in the U.S. that does not have a salary cap; the MLS, NHL, NBA and NFL all implement some sort of salary cap.

 

[Rob2010]

Sure, let's take newly acquired Red Sox Of Crawford. The Sox are going to pay him $140+ million because it is hoped that he can hit, steal and catch better than anyone else. See there is a limited number of openings at that job, three, so you try and hire best you can. Is he union, yes but he is being paid because it is hoped he can do a job nobody else can at that level.
Now let's look at our "other" union type. Is there a reason that this union job could not be made non-union and put out to bid? Would that not violate the prevailing wage laws if it is here in Mass, home of the Sox it sure would. Would society get the same service at a lower cost at nonunion rates, it sure would.
The difference is in baseball you pay for talent in most other union jobs you are paying for seniority and the fear of extortion.