Trying to hire and they are all "Drawing"

[sweettractors]

I agree, the theory that one is innocent until proven guilty is just too expensive. Accusation should be adequate reason to deprive anyone of their livelihood or even their life. :confused2: Don't get me wrong, I believe that proven pedophiles (sp?) should be permantly removes from society. Union membership often buys legal resources that single workers could never afford. Ken, I'm a little surprised to see you taken by a couple of historical union bashers. MikeD74T

Well mike, There is actually more to my disappointment in the direction our country is heading. My wife just finished serving a year long Grand Jury Obligation. She would come home time after time and tell me that the prosecutor instructed the jurors that they was no use to indite and expect jail time for repeat drug offenses, child abuse, theft, child ****** abuse etc. There were not enough jail cells available and the County could not afford to house them. They usually sent the offenders to rehab or home incarceration. What a joke. Ken Sweet

 

[Marlowe]

I had a friend ask me about a job just a few weeks ago.I told her to apply to the grocery store where my wife works and let me know when and where she did. We would fast track her application. She applied for unemployment yesterday and never submitted an application at the grocery store.

Yep, we make it too easy and too rewarding to live off the ones of us who are gainfully employed.

 

[Duffster]

I had a friend ask me about a job just a few weeks ago.I told her to apply to the grocery store where my wife works and let me know when and where she did. We would fast track her application. She applied for unemployment yesterday and never submitted an application at the grocery store.

Yep, we make it too easy and too rewarding to live off the ones of us who are gainfully employed.

If she was eligible for UI she earned it. Unless it is the extension of benefits nobody else that is "gainfully" employed is paying for it.

 

[gerard]

If she was eligible for UI she earned it. Unless it is the extension of benefits nobody else that is "gainfully" employed is paying for it.

That attitude my friend is part of the problem and shows a lack of understanding in basic economics. Now UI may work different from state to state but in NY, it is the employer who pays into the fund. The unemplyment fund works like any other fund. Money comes in and money goes out. The rates are a "cost" to the employer who has to factor that in to the cost of doing business. More people drawing on the fund for longer time periods will draw down the fund. When more comes out than goes in, the only option is to increase the money going in by raising rates. That increases employer costs who now raises his prices and they get passed on to joe public.

Paying someone to do nothing is not now nor will it ever be a good idea and remaining on unemployment longer than needed is abusing the system. If you're ok being a drain on society when you don't have to be, by all means do it. Just don't try to justify it as a "right you earned."

 

[sweettractors]

That attitude my friend is part of the problem and shows a lack of understanding in basic economics. Now UI may work different from state to state but in NY, it is the employer who pays into the fund. The unemplyment fund works like any other fund. Money comes in and money goes out. The rates are a "cost" to the employer who has to factor that in to the cost of doing business. More people drawing on the fund for longer time periods will draw down the fund. When more comes out than goes in, the only option is to increase the money going in by raising rates. That increases employer costs who now raises his prices and they get passed on to joe public.

Paying someone to do nothing is not now nor will it ever be a good idea and remaining on unemployment longer than needed is abusing the system. If you're ok being a drain on society when you don't have to be, by all means do it. Just don't try to justify it as a "right you earned."

In Ky, The employer foots all the UI costs. The employee does not pay into anything. Ken Sweet

 

[Duffster]

That attitude my friend is part of the problem and shows a lack of understanding in basic economics. Now UI may work different from state to state but in NY, it is the employer who pays into the fund. The unemplyment fund works like any other fund. Money comes in and money goes out. The rates are a "cost" to the employer who has to factor that in to the cost of doing business. More people drawing on the fund for longer time periods will draw down the fund. When more comes out than goes in, the only option is to increase the money going in by raising rates. That increases employer costs who now raises his prices and they get passed on to joe public.

Paying someone to do nothing is not now nor will it ever be a good idea and remaining on unemployment longer than needed is abusing the system. If you're ok being a drain on society when you don't have to be, by all means do it. Just don't try to justify it as a "right you earned."

Sorry but it is earned.

The employer pays in on the wages the employee earned. The employee can only draw on that amount. Nobody else pays. If the employer didn't have to pay UI they could pay more wages. UI is an earned beny no different than health or dental insurance.

With your argument you are just a drain on society everytime you go to the doctor.

 

[sweettractors]

Duffster, I guess worker comp premiums employers pay are also part of the employees wages? Ken Sweet

 

[Duffster]

Duffster, I guess worker comp premiums employers pay are also part of the employees wages? Ken Sweet

In effect yes.

Is someone that is hurt on the job and collecting workmans comp a drain on society?

 

[Duffster]

Gerard, do you or do you plan on drawing social security?

 

[sodamo]

If she was eligible for UI she earned it. Unless it is the extension of benefits nobody else that is "gainfully" employed is paying for it.

If it is considered "earned" I have a proposal:
Those of us who worked all our lives and NEVER drew UI ought to be paid a lump sum upon retirement. Say at turning 65, lump sum equal to 50% of max benefit qualified. If you've previously drawn a single check then zero. Could be quite an incentive not to draw and a considerable savings to the system.