99 weeks + 26 weeks= 125 weeks; 21/2 years on the public dole. If you have not found work in that time frame, you never will or are not trying. I know individuals who have stated that they are going to ride this horse into SS retirement and have no intentions of ever working again. Sad but true.
First in New York the maximum number of weeks is 92, second the the proposed extensions are for those who fall short of the maximum number of elegible weeks, third Unemployment Insurance is an INSURANCE program that worker contribute to while they are employed with payouts far less than what was earned while working fulltime. The fact is the large number of long term unemployeed are a direct result of the mis-management of the economy that started with the tax cuts under the Bush administration and were kept in place as a trade of for an extension of jobless benefits at the end of 2010.
Unemployment should start to force people to move into jobs like the one that Rex Linked after an allotted time frame or have it cut off. Everyone says Illegals are doing jobs Americans wont do, the only reason that is the case is because programs like unemployment have been extended so long. If people had to work to put food on the table they would.
There is a job for everyone collecting unemployment.
Disregard age or the ability to do the job - FORCE them into those fields and farms.
Will the farmer be responsible for the insurance to cover those who clearly are unable to do the job they are FORCED to do?
Will the farmer be responsible for the loss of product mishandled by people not qualified to do the job or lost when the harvest doesn't come in on time?
FORCE them? Strong word.
Are unemployed criminals? Should they be shackled into chain gangs and FORCED to work?
I don't know anyone who says they love living on half or less the money they are used to having.
Unemployment isn't fun. It can be more tiring than going to that job 40 hours a week. It is an exercise of updating a resume' that will attract the interest of a potential employer. It is an exercise of dumbing down that resume' so that one isn't told they are over qualified for a minimum wage job that will get them off the unemployment line.
It is an exercise in futility when interviews don't go well or when one knows that the interview was pointless. The disappointment when a job isn't offered, or when a day's worth of interviews brings no results is stressful.
If you are white collar and are downsized by a major company you might receive the perk of going to an "office" each day to hone your job seeking skills.
If you are blue collar, you go to the employment center and use the resources they have to help you get a job.
You are told to go on an interview for a job that pays less than $10/hour, but is 90 minutes away by car. Your gas, round trip, each day will take care of the paycheck, but heck - it's a job. Refuse it and you lose your unemployment insurance.
There is nothing appealing about losing one's job. The last thing anyone needs to add to that burden is knowing they are now labeled losers and deadbeats by members of their community who really know nothing about their personal situation.
That won't stop those neighbors to sniff their nose at them and advocated FORCING them into a menial job for which they may or may not be qualified to do.
Did anyone hear about the long term unemployed discrimination bill? I was unemployed for almost 2 years, and it wasn't because I was unwilling to work. I applied to hundreds of job postings, emailed 100's of resumes, spent a lot of gas money, and just could not find a job. Temp to hire is a bunch of crap I wouldn't waste my time on, they promise a higher wage and benefits after a certain number of days, then lay you off just before you hit that number. It's time to get rid of temp agencies, all they do is use people and screw up their unemployment.
A lot of the unemployed are within 5-10 years of retirement. I've heard many times that businesses aren't responding to applications from older workers, they are more likely to choose from the abundance of fresh young college grads. I don't think the vast majority of the 50 and 60 years-old people looking for work would be able to physically put in the back breaking work that these farm jobs entail. Seriously, do you expect a 57 y/o former secretary or a 61 y/o former tow motor operator to now go pick cabbage in the hot sun for 12 hours a day, for days on end...yeah, that's happening.
Things just aren't as cut-and-dry as many want to believe.
EDIT*- Bea beat me to the punch on this point.
Well put both Bea and Frank!
The average unemployment check in NYS is $350. That's $8.75/hr for a 40 hour week.
At the end of 99 weeks, no more unless you get a job. If you make less than you are getting on unemployment, the we can make up the difference for maybe another 15- 26 weeks.
But, how long is long enough? it may not be your fault your out of work, but how long should you get unemployment? You might not like working below your skill level or doing manual labor. Maybe you don't like working at a fast food store or a big box store, but after 99 weeks, take the job.
And when did Americans start feeling some jobs are below them, but ok for some migrate worker?
Bea lots of us work for less than $10.00 her hour now! Gee so ones standerd of living has to be maintained at the expense of a few. I have done well and I have been without one learns to deal with lifes ups and downs. So you seem to think that farm work is below these people but its ok to bring in people from another country thats ok. The policys of our goverment are at fault for the unemployment. Its a neat trick to stay in power ... Run off the jobs, then get the people on the dole pat them on the back and say See how we are helping you not like those teabaggers and there lot we are here for you ... And the people eat it up .
Unemployment checks come from taxes on employers. In many states, like NY, the money ran out and they borrowed from the Federal government. To get more, they will have to raise the tax on the employers, and not just the big ones, but all of them. Many of them now are just hanging on. You raise the tax on them more and some may survive, but some will have to lay off worker(s) to pay the tax, or just give up and close. How many small businesses around here can take another tax hike?
"This year, though, with tough times lingering and a big jump in the minimum wage under the program, to nearly $10.50 an hour, Mr. Harold brought in only two-thirds of his usual contingent. The other positions, he figured, would be snapped up by jobless local residents wanting some extra summer cash.
“It didn’t take me six hours to realize I’d made a heck of a mistake,” Mr. Harold said, standing in his onion field on a recent afternoon as a crew of workers from Mexico cut the tops off yellow onions and bagged them.
Six hours was enough, between the 6 a.m. start time and noon lunch break, for the first wave of local workers to quit. Some simply never came back and gave no reason. Twenty-five of them said specifically, according to farm records, that the work was too hard. "
/end quote
So Rex, if you're making less than $10 an hour (as in "a lot of us" do it), then why don't you go out today to Elba and apply for a farm job? You could be making $10.50 an hour now doing farm work. So, why don't you? And with the long hours, 10, 12, 14 hour days, you could be making a lot more than you are now. I'm sure there are a lot of farmers who would love to hire a good, hardworking U.S. citizen. It would save them a lot of paperwork and grief from the feds.
I have worked the farms in Elba as well and yes it is hard work. But Dairy work is much differant and that is what the article I refered to is about. Dairy work is milking ,Maintance and the like but not much crawling through field doing onions. You folks mean to tell me that a 50-60 year old can not milk cows? Or drive a tractor or repair stuff? We are in bad shape for sure.
Howard,
Rex has a job. We are talking about people unemployed for 90-99 weeks and the unemployment checks will end. Do you think we should raise taxes on employers to pay longer than 99 weeks?
My first job after lay-off in 2005 (three weeks after termination) was through a temp-hire agency. I worked for Verizon Specialty Division in Rochester installing LAN networks. My hourly ranged from $15.50 to $30.00 - no benefits. Most of my two-month stay involved public school sites, construction with prevailing rate enforced at $30.00/hour. ...Granted that is a technical field, and I had previous experience to get my foot in the door. My point, one can't lump all temp agencies in the same category; some employment, by nature, is seasonal or short-term.
The basic ingredients leading to long-term unemployment are threefold: 1) the predictable bulge of baby-boomers, 2) job-seekers with obsolete job skills and 3) current hiring trends. Only two of those factors can be readily dealt with. Aside from attrition, there is no cure for the baby-boomer glut. Current hiring/production trends (hiring younger, technically savvy candidates, eliminating third-shift and relying on overtime instead of more employees) will not change until companies see an advantage to doing so. The most effective driver for changing that mentality would be to lessen the burden of health insurance costs. Mediating the other factor requires re-training job-seekers who lack employable skills.
Many of the long-term unemployed are in the 50 - 60 year age bracket. Expecting people of that age to switch from office/factory work to farm labor is somewhat unrealistic. It may look good on paper, but the wage and physical implications are impractical. Granted: we are looking at this in the narrow focus of our own regional employment opportunities. The April through October agricultural season leaves five unaccounted months. Off-season down time would require wintering on unemployment or looking to retail or food service jobs. In any event, most of this would look very grim to someone with 20 + year work history separated from $40 - 60,000 annual earnings, trying to hold things together until retirement benefits kick in. Holding things together to a large degree means retaining health insurance benefits.
Health insurance benefits is a key consideration. Many older lay-off victims have health issues: carpal tunnel, rotator cuff, bad knees, bad backs- often the result of work-related injury. It is not unusual for over-50 workers to be re-hired and after a year take a three-month leave on workman's comp to undergo an orthopedic procedure. This tendency isn't lost on HR personnel who cull applicants.
We have to take a wider look at this problem without making assumptions. It is not as simple as plugging the unemployed into available jobs. It is not always pride that prevents an unemployed person from taking a low-paying job. Unemployment benefits do not lend to luxury, but when expenses outweigh pay, the choice becomes academic. If one cannot survive on either unemployment or a $10.00 per hour job, one stays on unemployment and pounds the pavement tracking down a better opportunity.
Frankly, I'd like to see a few CEOs, bank authorities and investment brokers out in the fields picking rocks. It might teach them the value of work as opposed to playing with other people's money- screwing up the economy, closing factories, decimating pension plans and cutting employee benefits.
The farm jobs should be mandatory for anyone who wants to play highschool football in Genesee County. Clear eyes, pure heart can't lose. The only way to have clear eyes and a pure heart is to be dog dead tired at the end of a day, that's when bodies recharge best.
A well deserved Emmy for Friday Night Lights.
Rex wrote, "You folks mean to tell me that a 50-60 year old can not milk cows? Or drive a tractor or repair stuff? We are in bad shape for sure."
How long will it take to re-train a 60+ female office worker to "repair stuff"?
No doubt there are females who can do that job, but what about those who can't? Where will you FORCE them to work?
You never did answer the question about the farmers' (be that truck farmers or dairy farmers) liability insurance. Will they be FORCED to carry more insurance?
What happens when crops wither in the field because the harvest is delayed by inexperienced help?
I'd be willing to bet that almost every single person that voted "yes, weekly payments should be extended." are people who are currently on unemployment and sucking off the state.
There are WAY too many people with the WRONG attitude towards unemployment. (not everyone, but way more than some people would like to admit, the sad thing is if we were being totally honest here most of us would say they know someone that fits one of the 3 attitudes below)
Attitude#1: This is a vacation, its kinda like being a welfare scumbag, but because i did work at one time an my employer technically did pay into it then people wont mind if i abuse it and take it for everything i can, including these extremely wasteful "extensions", because after all it is "insurance".
Attitude #2: When things get slow at a job some people actually REQUEST a lay off because they know they will be getting something for nothing by not working, instead of being scared to death that they may not be working anymore.
Attitude #3: I am used to making X amount of dollars an hour, and i wont accept any job that pays less than that, and who cares because even though unemployment does not fully pay what i am used to getting, i still get something so i can be really picky as to what job i take, if i "decide" to take one. (I hate this one the most)
The correct attitude should be: Unemployment should be an absolute last resort that you accept if you cant find ANY work what-so-ever. People who are working now whether they make 7.00 an hour or 50.00 an hour should be extremely grateful that they are working, there is no such thing as a bad job. If you are making an honest living regardless of your pay you should be extremely proud of yourself. If your not working, you had better have a REAL good explaination, hopefully none of the 3 from above.....
Just for the record, most of my rant is directed towards people younger than 50. The 50 and 60 year olds that have been mentioned in this thread above do have my sympathy because there are some employers that dont exactly look to them when they need to hire, they do tend to look towards youth, ironically its the older people in our society that have the BEST work ethics conversely, its the youth of this country that are extremely lazy and brought up to believe that the gov't will take care of them, and they don't have to work for a living.
Jessica, just to reiterate what has already been posted, employers pay unemployment ins. on all employees.
I worked the onion fields during my high school years, and worked from the time I was 18 until 2008, and never collected unemployment. In 2008, I was layed off, and yes, the unthinkable happened, I signed up for unemployment
benefits. After working for 35+ years, I still didn't like the idea of money for nothing, checks for free, but I realized I still had to eat, pay bills, and buy over priced gas to look for work. If that's sucking off the state,
so be it. The longer one is out of work, the less likely finding a job becomes.
When people talk about what THEY believe others are thinking, it is great insight into the character of the first person. Why? Because it is exactly THAT person's attitude. Everyone tends to judge others by what they would do or how they would feel given a similar situation. In other words, if they accuse the unemployed of being lazy or milking the system it is because it is EXACTLY what they would do or think.
It is easy to blast past ligitimate reasons to refuse a job because it would cost more to get back and forth to work than the job would pay and get right to what they consider the meat of the matter--that anyone without a job should have to take the first thing offered to them. Child care? Medical benefits? Disability? Just pound that square peg into the round hole. Who cares, right?
What has happened to peoples' hearts, if they ever had one?
Jessica, that was just plain mean. I voted yes and I have not collected unemployment in over forty years. On the occasion that I was, I looked for work the entire time and was soon rehired at my old job.
Jessica wrote, "I'd be willing to bet that almost every single person that voted "yes, weekly payments should be extended." are people who are currently on unemployment and sucking off the state."
I'm one of those who voted 'yes', and no, I'm not collecting unemployment insurance.
That said, I've been with major corporations that did "downsize" and "furloughed" employees. Nice sanitized words, aren't they? For many older people, this scenario has happened more than once.
The first time it happens, a person might be fortunate to find another job quickly. They have skills that are needed in whatever field they work.
The second time it happens, the field in which they worked may be one of many becoming obsolete because of technology. This time, the person collects unemployment while accepting that the skills they have need to be updated or they need to be retrained in another field.
Retraining takes time. It isn't something that happens overnight. Unemployment insurance helps pays the bills while the person is working to learn new skill sets geared to a new career choice.
The third time it happens, most likely due to a stagnant economy, our person is older. Retraining will take time (again). Although there are labor laws that prohibit age discrimination, HR people know how to get around it In some cases, the stock answer is that one is overqualified for the available jobs.
Job or no job, the bills still come in. Rent or mortgage; utilities; insurance; food; medicine; transportation expenses; etc. The person may have never lived beyond their means, but that doesn't mean that there aren't bills.
So, now this person finds themselves in a unique position. They have been trained; they have a work history that shows they were, and can still be, a productive member of the labor force, but there is a glut of fresh out of school young adults also competing for those same jobs. The HR people will hire an entry level before they hire the experienced worker.
Whether that person likes it or not, unemployment insurance is the life line that holds it all together until they can get a job.
You may call it sucking off the state, but most people call it survival until they can pull their lives together again.
By the way, you DO know that people who collect unemployment insurance pay state and federal tax on the money collected?
Rex, I haven't seen those dairy jobs posted in any newspapers or job sites, where are they?
When the Nano-Tech course was offered, I signed up for it, only to find out I would have to quit my current job to go to daytime classes. The playing field is very tilted against older workers.
In my opinion, corporate greed is the driving force behind the stagnant economy, They wouldn't bat an eye while throwing hundreds of American workers into the streets and move their operations to some unregulated, unsafe, low paying third world country. They can spew poison into the atmosphere, expose employees to unsafe working conditions, pollute rivers and streams, and at the end of the day, their products appear on American shelves at the same price as when American employees were producing these goods.
I can't wait till they bring the war troops back home. I hope they wont apply for unemployment because if they are heroes they will take a job that will pay them crap for all the hard work they did to keep us safe. Not to mention how many people will not be able to get crappy jobs because people will want to hire veterans first. I think it is time to be mad at the system and not the people.
Gabor, most troops will still be in the military when they come home. Of course Obama has now asked that up 10,000 be allowed to stay in Iraq, so there is no telling how long your wish will take.
John, I know your question was for Bea, but I'd like to ask you, at what point should children be allowed to go without basic necessities. At what point should parents have to move out of their homes. At what point should the older worker just shoot themselves?
The social safety networks are here for a reason. YES there will be the slugs who have no intention of looking for work, but just because a few abuse the system, should everyone be thrown to the wolves? People are suffering already.
John, I've been on both sides of the counter, both as someone who had to claim benefits and one who has worked in that office processing claims. The ideal, of course, would be to look at each case on an individual basis. As much as you and the others who want to cut each person from the same cloth, it just isn't that cut and dried.
There are some who abuse the system...there are some who abuse their power as executives for large corporations; there are some who abuse their positions in law enforcement. Abuse can be found everywhere.
Do we advocate firing all law enforcement because a few of their members are not trustworthy? Do we advocate stopping federal, state and local pensions to civil servants because some have abused the system? Should those pensions have a deadline. After X amount of years, should people lose that benefit?
Actually, John, it was American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who advocated "keep(ing) as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there." According to a USA Today report, "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta may ask to keep 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but some generals believe a bigger residual force is required, according to published reports." Panetta's exact words were, ""That (keeping troops in Iraq) obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
...From the same USA Today story, "We are operating under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by the previous administration to draw down our forces," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "We are in negotiations, consultations with the Iraqi government about what our relationship with Iraq will look like going forward. We want a normal, productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward."
According to John Glaser of AntiWar.Blog, "They (the Obama administration) strong-armed the Iraqi leadership (who relishes their client state status in contravention of the SOFA and the wishes of the Iraqi people) into letting stay around 4,000 US troops as “trainers” for Iraqi security forces. Of course, that doesn’t include the 5,000-7,000 mercenaries meant to stay there and the 17,000 State Department employees and contractors sticking around, indefinitely, as I reported here. But now Obama is facing strong pressure from conservative hawks to increase the number of US troops to remain in Iraq, from 4,000 to many more thousands."
Reuters reporter Ross Colvin summarized, "The United States is on track to draw down its forces in Iraq to 50,000 by Aug. 31, but there are doubts President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
"As a presidential candidate Obama campaigned to end the now seven-year-old war responsibly, and as president he has been explicit in his assurances to Americans that no troops will remain in Iraq come Jan. 1, 2012.
"Easier said than done.
"While violence has dipped sharply since the height of sectarian warfare from 2006-2007, Iraq remains fragile and its leaders have not resolved a number of politically explosive issues that could easily trigger renewed fighting.
"The United States wants a stable, friendly Iraq, and analysts are skeptical Obama will do anything to jeopardize that.
"Iraq's military chief, the former U.S. general who oversaw the training of Iraq's security forces, and U.S. officials who negotiated the current U.S.-Iraqi military pact are among those who say a U.S. military presence will be needed beyond 2011.
"(Former) defense secretary, Robert Gates, left the door open to that possibility in comments last week while emphasizing that Iraq's new government, still to be formed after an inconclusive election in March, would first have to ask.
"If a new government is formed there and they want to talk about beyond 2011, we're obviously open to that discussion," Gates said."
"His comments were likely not welcomed in the White House, which is carefully sticking to its Iraq talking point for voters before tough congressional elections in November -- the president is keeping his promise to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011."
The most recent comment from Leon Panetta (today) (CNN) -- "The U.S. Secretary of Defense says any agreement reached that keeps American troops in Iraq past an end-of-the-year deadline to withdraw must include immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
"'If they want the benefits of what we can provide, if they want the assistance, if they want the training, if they want the operational skills that we can provide, then I think they have to understand that they've got to give us some protections in that process,' Leon Panetta told sailors Friday during a visit to Naples, Italy, home of the U.S. 6th Fleet.
"Panetta's statement follows news this week that Iraq's top political leadership agreed that a number of American troops should remain in the country to aid in training and security, though said it was "unnecessary" to grant U.S. forces legal immunity."
Your statement, John, would seem to be premature- at best.
Bea wrote, " ... If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are ... "
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar…"
It's not the government's job to take care of the poor.
That's not saying the government shouldn't have social services programs, but for God's sake, don't use Jesus to justify it.
John it is not my wish at all. Many service members specifically went into service to fight the war not to make it a career. To think that once troops are withdrawn that the government wont try to encourage a reduction in military forces is naive.
The Colbert comment just seemed right for the moment.
I'm still choking on FORCING people into labor camps to work on farms and do something for which they are not qualified or physically able to do because they are unemployed. Is that where we are headed?
One would hope, after so many horrific historic examples of making people second class citizens because of their race, creed, or financial situation that we've learned something. I guess I was wrong.
You are right about the separation of church and state. Perhaps it was a poor place to put that. I hate that we can't just put up new posts for discussion. People, me included, seem to attach those ideas onto existing topics now.
I deleted the Colbert comment.
Since all those on new york state unemployment are getting check form the state..Why not make them work for it...Maybe being a crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home..As long as the state is paying for them ..let them go to work for their check...Then we will see how quick the find a job..Plus i would also drug test them...If they can't pass a drug test then they shouldn't get unemployment checks..This thing about how the older people can't work on farms is the same as saying the can't do labor jobs building roads and infrastructure that Obama claims this jobs bill is all about..So what jobs will these 50 year olds be able to do...
Mark wrote:
"Since all those on new york state unemployment are getting check form the state..Why not make them work for it...Maybe being a crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home..As long as the state is paying for them ..let them go to work for their check...
I'll add:
...and in their spare time they can go on interviews; make connections with possible employers; get training.
Mark wrote:
"Then we will see how quick the find a job."
I'll add:
These people are unemployed due to layoffs or businesses going under, not through any fault of their own. Do you really believe that every person receiving unemployment benefits is a deadbeat?
Mark wrote:
"Plus i would also drug test them...If they can't pass a drug test then they shouldn't get unemployment checks."
I'll add:
"Why the assumption that those who lost their jobs are substance abusers?"
Mark wrote:
"This thing about how the older people can't work on farms is the same as saying the can't do labor jobs building roads and infrastructure that Obama claims this jobs bill is all about..So what jobs will these 50 year olds be able to do..."
I'll add:
You pose a good question. Damn those pesky 50 and 60 year olds. They are the people who should be drug tested; FORCED to work for a benefit check; find time, when they aren't working off the amount of that check, to look for gainful employment.
Quite honestly, the drug testing makes it sound like every person who loses a job is a criminal that has to be tracked.
People submit to a drug test when they are considered for a job. No problem with that.
But, to add stress to an already stressful situation by insinuating that you lost your job because of a possible drug problem is unreasonable.
Losing a job, especially for older people, is not a walk in the park. What makes you think it is?
Whatever nest egg you have set aside is quickly consumed as you suppliment that benefit check for the everyday neccessities of life. Maybe I've always run in a different circle, but I don't know anyone who enjoyed not working. That check helps, but it certainly doesn't cover everything, even if one lives frugally.
Now, you are adding a 'work for that check' element. When is one expected to go for those interviews? How does one look for work while working for the check? Do you lose a check if you are invited out of town or out of state for an interview?
The state and federal government gets their share from the income from benefit checks. The recipient does have to pay income tax on that money.
I was out of work for THREE years, Mark. THREE YEARS! During that time, I did collect benefits from California and NYS. Not for the entire three years, but for a little over a year.
Why couldn't I find work? I went on countless interviews. My days were busy looking for a job, any job. The number of rejections was frustrating. The reason? I was over qualified for minimum wage jobs and was told that if they hired me they knew I would leave if a better job came along. I was told that I would be bored by certain jobs. In truth, I would have taken any job offered.
I was fortunate to have my old company in California rehire me as a remote employee so I didn't have to move back west.
Thank God, I didn't have the added pressure of being treated like a criminal because I lost my job. I pity anyone, today, who might have to endure the humiliation of being perceived to be a drug addict; a deadbeat; and a slacker because they lost their job .
I am half-tempted to agree with Mark. It sounds logical to expect some reciprocity (and work experience) from/for those receiving unemployment benefits. (Forgetting for the moment that unemployment is a proviso of employer payroll taxes and the benefit-itself is taxable income) It would be wise to consider the repercussions. In the current scheme of things- with hiring freezes, lay-offs and furloughs, germane to the public sector; what message are we sending those formerly and currently employed as "crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home?"
With rare exception, Mark, the jobs you mention would fall in the reserve of public employees. By connotation you deem those jobs necessary, while suggesting they should be filled by labor compensated by payroll tax revenue.I suppose we could preserve public jobs by restricting assignment of those on unemployment to positions not vacated by lay-off, but the lowest skill level jobs are the most likely to be shed when public budgets get pinched. To whatever degree, the unemployed would be shuffled into their former jobs at dramatically reduced compensation. ...In effect, stagnating an already depressed pool of available jobs.
It's difficult to separate your new class of worker from indentured servants, share-croppers and prison work-gangs. Are the unemployed the new slave-class rationalized by practicality?
Cuomo and the public employee unions may have agreed in principal to a wage package that averts state lay-offs; the agreement does not encompass local schools and governments making cuts independent of Cuomo's pact with PEF, CSEA, et al. Since August, over 50,000 public sector jobs have been curtailed across the nation. ...That added to 397,000 public jobs purged since 2008. As states divest of public employees to meet billion dollar budget short-falls (employees branded unnecessary by small-government advocates) what measure, the hypocrisy in replacing expended public employees with unemployment recipients?
Well, as the Republicans have demonized the move to apply higher taxes to millionaires and do away with the Bush tax cuts OR as Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) assessed, panning the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "pitting Americans against Americans;" how does indenturing the poor and unemployed differ? Isn't this just a different class war pitting Americans against Americans? Somehow the irony has been lost. The Republicans don't object to Tea Party anti-tax enthusiasm, the ostensibly Middle Class rising up against 'unfair taxation.' (The merit of those sentiments: the upper-crust wins by default.) HOWEVER, when the Middle Class rises up against the cynical, greed-born (if not illegal) manipulation of the market, displacing workers, booting families from their homes, gutting retirement accounts and crashing world economies...
I'm sorry, but the inequity of comparing the hardship of a millionaire to an hourly wage-earner is beyond apples and oranges. This IS class warfare, but the innocent are being vilified.
If someone is collecting benefits who does not deserve them, prosecute the fraud. Don't deprive those who are hurting from rightful benefit.
...And as an historical footnote- In the 1970s GM was having some tough times; the feds (Gerald Ford was in office, Carl Albert was Speaker of the House) made an agreement with GM. Lay-off employees until your house is back in order, and we (the feds) will kick in some extra dough so those laid-off will earn essentially, regular pay. I don't recall much grousing about that deal. In fact the "kid-next-door" was laid-off; 19 or 20-year-old, living at home, working at Delco, bought a muscle car and hung out at the beach all that summer. I was working at Comstock Foods, seven-days-a-week, 5:00 PM to 8:30 AM for minimum wage with overtime after 10 hours. I suppose I was a bit envious... can't blame the kid.
I agree with you whole heartedly. Having spent the majority of my life around dairy farming, I can't begin to number the times I've seen farmers, all but franctic for help, but there never seems to be anyone willing, or wanting to get their hand a bit dirty. The people from across the border seem so much more dependable and willing to actually work
Bea, you still dodged the question, how long is long enough to collect unemployment?
I remember when in the 1980' when s an Erie County Legislator, Berry Robinson (D), suggested that people receiving welfare checks be required to work at least part time for the public. He suggested as an example cleaning up the parks might be a good idea. He was condemned for suggesting that people work for their check. He was told that having people clean up the parks was undignified and degrading. Of course Erie County had full time civil service park workers who do that job for the parks.
Now we are talking about asking people who are collecting unemployment compensation to go to work after 99 weeks. Bea, working on a farm was given as an example of a type of work that is in need of help. And you know it was an example. While true many older workers might not be able to do farm work, some can. And you might have noticed not all unemployed are in the 50-60 year age bracket.
You deliberately skip the point, how long should we pay? Is 99 weeks enough or 188 weeks? At what point do we say that's it?
And should we raise taxes on employers to pay for longer benefits?
I worked the same job for 20 years,worked my way through the ranks, and because the company closed its doors, that makes me a scumbag? Why don't we stop all benefits for people and let everyone fend for themselves, can't wait to see the crime rate soar, and the jails fill up. One way or another, it will cost the taxpayers.
It's easy to sit at a computer and tell people they either don't deserve unemployment, or that it should be limited, but until these people end up in this position, they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I keep hearing about all these dairy farm jobs, why is it they never seem to be posted on job boards, or in the newspaper?
What's next, class warfare???
Why would someone who is collecting u.i. take a job that would put less money in their pockets, and actually end up losing money to work a dirty nasty job,only to find out they can't do the work? Attempting to put people to work in the community is another ridiculous idea when considering workers comp., liability ins., and the union screaming scab labor. Sorry folks, it's just not that simple.
Bea, you make an exellent point, it is stressful, and frustrating to be turned down after you've done everything in your power to find a job, only to not hear back from potential employers. Like I said, I would like to see Mark , John, and the rest of the naysayers handle a situation like this, I would be willing to bet they would change their tune in a heartbeat. It's easy to talk BS when your not the one going through the hard times.
Frank,
Nobody is suggesting being laid off makes you a "scumbag". The question is, after 99 weeks, close to two years, should you still get unemployment compensation? And if so, for how long?
And to continue paying for more than 99 weeks, we have to get the money from someplace, and that means a higher tax on employers. Will that extra tax help or hurt employment?
John, I'm well aware this money will have to come from taxpayers, or employers. I, for one can understand what this means for small business owners. Is public assistance the answer after 99 weeks, or should we just do away with U.I.benefits and place all who, through no fault of their own, lost their job on public assistance?
I carried the same attitude towards the unemployed collecting checks without working as many who post here do.
I had a decent job, good benefits, the teamsters, what more could one ask for, I was living the American Dream.
Then the plant closed, 20 years of service down the drain, goodbye 5 weeks vacation, goodbye 401 contributions, goodbye great healthcare package, and goodbye profit sharing.
With all this on your mind, try going to a job interview and be at your very best.
I don't have answers, wish I did, but we as a nation, can't take the survival of the fittest attitude,or can we?
I guess what I'm really asking is this; are we as a people, going to consider the jobless as a liabilty that we, and corporate America, no longer wish to support?, or can't afford to support?
Are we as a people being honest? We can spend billions on the Iraqi's, the Afghans, and are always counted on by the international community to respond to all types of disasters, but are reluctant to take care of our own?
I sure as hell hope this is not what this nation has turned into.
Heard an old song by Steppenwolf the other day, even though it was written about the Vietnam era USA, it sure seemed to still hold it's political message. The song is titled "Monster", give it a listen, it is as scary as it is ironic.
Wow i guess that riled a few people...My point was since the state is allready paying people why not use those talents that they have for all the thing we hear there is no money in budgets for...Like teachers-aides,Nurse-aides,day care workers....the list goes on and on...It could almost be like on the job training..It would teach new skill sets for jobs that are needed..Frank,i never said unemployed were scumbags..because they lost there job..But unless they learn some new skills they could be unemployed for a long time..As far as drug tests go Bea..You have to take one to get a job no matter how old you are,so why wouldn't you have to get one to receive unemployment...You are spose to be able to be ready to work ..Life ain't Fair....I was trying to offer solutions....
Frank,.
Support is the issue and at what level. Since the 1930's the country has decided to support a social safety net. It is called Social Security, welfare and unemployment compensation. As a nation, we are not reluctant to take care of our own, but what is meant by "taking care of"? At a certain point, people will have to move off one form of assistance (unemployment) and on to another (welfare), but when should that take place?
John, when it happens really doesn't matter, the cost will remain, we have spent so much time kissing corporate America's ass, that we are afraid to say in simple English it cost money to be in business. Our leaders are nothing more than puppets who wouldn't be in office if not for the wealth of corporate America.
We would rather raise taxes than tell employers they may have to make sacrifices, heavens forbid.
To think the City just spent 55 grand to learn we have bad attitudes, can't imagine how that came about. That would be enough money for a one week extension for 157 people at 350 a week.
Mark, do you think you can just plug people into jobs that were once held by union employees who were laid off due to budget cuts? There is the question of insurance, workers comp, it is simply not that easy, if it were, I'm certain it would have been tried.
Retraining is another problem, who pays for it, it may be cheaper to extend U.I. benefits.
Howard, this was a great poll question, the issues it raises are so complex.
I agree with you on the drug testing. You nailed the reason for justification of the drug testing to receive any kind of UEI or Public Assistance as well. When people are receiving UEI they are suppose to be able to go to work at any point. Most employers require pre-employment drug test as a condition of being hired.
You didn't have to specifically say people that are unemployed are scumbags, because the tone of your comment implied it.
As for your solutions, well the drug testing was probably the only realistic one. Plugging people into jobs that don't exist because of budget cuts is unrealistic. If you have someone sitting at a cross walk working for the state as a crossing guard, how are they suppose to be out looking for a job?
Frank,
Try real hard to remember most of "corporate" American is small business. Sure they'll happy to hear you say it cost them money to be in business. Some of the people who post here are small business owners. Maybe Howard can do a poll of them and ask how many can afford a little more in taxes.
John, either they pay, or the taxpayers do, like I said, this raises complex issues, are we as a nation ready to turn our backs on our own while pumping billions overseas?
John, when I use the term " corporate America" I'm speaking of all the major players who lobby to protect the status quo. Some of the same who put small business out of business.
99 weeks + 26 weeks= 125
99 weeks + 26 weeks= 125 weeks; 21/2 years on the public dole. If you have not found work in that time frame, you never will or are not trying. I know individuals who have stated that they are going to ride this horse into SS retirement and have no intentions of ever working again. Sad but true.
First in New York the maximum
First in New York the maximum number of weeks is 92, second the the proposed extensions are for those who fall short of the maximum number of elegible weeks, third Unemployment Insurance is an INSURANCE program that worker contribute to while they are employed with payouts far less than what was earned while working fulltime. The fact is the large number of long term unemployeed are a direct result of the mis-management of the economy that started with the tax cuts under the Bush administration and were kept in place as a trade of for an extension of jobless benefits at the end of 2010.
Ed, Employers, not employees,
Ed,
Employers, not employees, pay the tax.
http://thebatavian.com/howard
http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/hochul-introduces-bill-help-dairy-f… There is work here but we need to bring in people from another country to do it. Kinda sad that its below our people to make an honest days work .
Unemployment should start to
Unemployment should start to force people to move into jobs like the one that Rex Linked after an allotted time frame or have it cut off. Everyone says Illegals are doing jobs Americans wont do, the only reason that is the case is because programs like unemployment have been extended so long. If people had to work to put food on the table they would.
There is a job for everyone
There is a job for everyone collecting unemployment.
Disregard age or the ability to do the job - FORCE them into those fields and farms.
Will the farmer be responsible for the insurance to cover those who clearly are unable to do the job they are FORCED to do?
Will the farmer be responsible for the loss of product mishandled by people not qualified to do the job or lost when the harvest doesn't come in on time?
FORCE them? Strong word.
Are unemployed criminals? Should they be shackled into chain gangs and FORCED to work?
I don't know anyone who says they love living on half or less the money they are used to having.
Unemployment isn't fun. It can be more tiring than going to that job 40 hours a week. It is an exercise of updating a resume' that will attract the interest of a potential employer. It is an exercise of dumbing down that resume' so that one isn't told they are over qualified for a minimum wage job that will get them off the unemployment line.
It is an exercise in futility when interviews don't go well or when one knows that the interview was pointless. The disappointment when a job isn't offered, or when a day's worth of interviews brings no results is stressful.
If you are white collar and are downsized by a major company you might receive the perk of going to an "office" each day to hone your job seeking skills.
If you are blue collar, you go to the employment center and use the resources they have to help you get a job.
You are told to go on an interview for a job that pays less than $10/hour, but is 90 minutes away by car. Your gas, round trip, each day will take care of the paycheck, but heck - it's a job. Refuse it and you lose your unemployment insurance.
There is nothing appealing about losing one's job. The last thing anyone needs to add to that burden is knowing they are now labeled losers and deadbeats by members of their community who really know nothing about their personal situation.
That won't stop those neighbors to sniff their nose at them and advocated FORCING them into a menial job for which they may or may not be qualified to do.
Did anyone hear about the
Did anyone hear about the long term unemployed discrimination bill? I was unemployed for almost 2 years, and it wasn't because I was unwilling to work. I applied to hundreds of job postings, emailed 100's of resumes, spent a lot of gas money, and just could not find a job. Temp to hire is a bunch of crap I wouldn't waste my time on, they promise a higher wage and benefits after a certain number of days, then lay you off just before you hit that number. It's time to get rid of temp agencies, all they do is use people and screw up their unemployment.
A lot of the unemployed are
A lot of the unemployed are within 5-10 years of retirement. I've heard many times that businesses aren't responding to applications from older workers, they are more likely to choose from the abundance of fresh young college grads. I don't think the vast majority of the 50 and 60 years-old people looking for work would be able to physically put in the back breaking work that these farm jobs entail. Seriously, do you expect a 57 y/o former secretary or a 61 y/o former tow motor operator to now go pick cabbage in the hot sun for 12 hours a day, for days on end...yeah, that's happening.
Things just aren't as cut-and-dry as many want to believe.
EDIT*- Bea beat me to the punch on this point.
Well put both Bea and Frank!
The average unemployment
The average unemployment check in NYS is $350. That's $8.75/hr for a 40 hour week.
At the end of 99 weeks, no more unless you get a job. If you make less than you are getting on unemployment, the we can make up the difference for maybe another 15- 26 weeks.
But, how long is long enough? it may not be your fault your out of work, but how long should you get unemployment? You might not like working below your skill level or doing manual labor. Maybe you don't like working at a fast food store or a big box store, but after 99 weeks, take the job.
And when did Americans start feeling some jobs are below them, but ok for some migrate worker?
Bea lots of us work for less
Bea lots of us work for less than $10.00 her hour now! Gee so ones standerd of living has to be maintained at the expense of a few. I have done well and I have been without one learns to deal with lifes ups and downs. So you seem to think that farm work is below these people but its ok to bring in people from another country thats ok. The policys of our goverment are at fault for the unemployment. Its a neat trick to stay in power ... Run off the jobs, then get the people on the dole pat them on the back and say See how we are helping you not like those teabaggers and there lot we are here for you ... And the people eat it up .
Unemployment checks come from
Unemployment checks come from taxes on employers. In many states, like NY, the money ran out and they borrowed from the Federal government. To get more, they will have to raise the tax on the employers, and not just the big ones, but all of them. Many of them now are just hanging on. You raise the tax on them more and some may survive, but some will have to lay off worker(s) to pay the tax, or just give up and close. How many small businesses around here can take another tax hike?
Rex, here's a story for
Rex, here's a story for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-wo…
Quote:
"This year, though, with tough times lingering and a big jump in the minimum wage under the program, to nearly $10.50 an hour, Mr. Harold brought in only two-thirds of his usual contingent. The other positions, he figured, would be snapped up by jobless local residents wanting some extra summer cash.
“It didn’t take me six hours to realize I’d made a heck of a mistake,” Mr. Harold said, standing in his onion field on a recent afternoon as a crew of workers from Mexico cut the tops off yellow onions and bagged them.
Six hours was enough, between the 6 a.m. start time and noon lunch break, for the first wave of local workers to quit. Some simply never came back and gave no reason. Twenty-five of them said specifically, according to farm records, that the work was too hard. "
/end quote
So Rex, if you're making less than $10 an hour (as in "a lot of us" do it), then why don't you go out today to Elba and apply for a farm job? You could be making $10.50 an hour now doing farm work. So, why don't you? And with the long hours, 10, 12, 14 hour days, you could be making a lot more than you are now. I'm sure there are a lot of farmers who would love to hire a good, hardworking U.S. citizen. It would save them a lot of paperwork and grief from the feds.
I have worked the farms in
I have worked the farms in Elba as well and yes it is hard work. But Dairy work is much differant and that is what the article I refered to is about. Dairy work is milking ,Maintance and the like but not much crawling through field doing onions. You folks mean to tell me that a 50-60 year old can not milk cows? Or drive a tractor or repair stuff? We are in bad shape for sure.
Howard, Rex has a job. We are
Howard,
Rex has a job. We are talking about people unemployed for 90-99 weeks and the unemployment checks will end. Do you think we should raise taxes on employers to pay longer than 99 weeks?
Watch this five times and you
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIgLotGJ2vQ&feature=channel_video_title]
Watch this five times and you will feel mellow and quite comfortable for ten days to two weeks, then recharge.
My first job after lay-off in
My first job after lay-off in 2005 (three weeks after termination) was through a temp-hire agency. I worked for Verizon Specialty Division in Rochester installing LAN networks. My hourly ranged from $15.50 to $30.00 - no benefits. Most of my two-month stay involved public school sites, construction with prevailing rate enforced at $30.00/hour. ...Granted that is a technical field, and I had previous experience to get my foot in the door. My point, one can't lump all temp agencies in the same category; some employment, by nature, is seasonal or short-term.
The basic ingredients leading to long-term unemployment are threefold: 1) the predictable bulge of baby-boomers, 2) job-seekers with obsolete job skills and 3) current hiring trends. Only two of those factors can be readily dealt with. Aside from attrition, there is no cure for the baby-boomer glut. Current hiring/production trends (hiring younger, technically savvy candidates, eliminating third-shift and relying on overtime instead of more employees) will not change until companies see an advantage to doing so. The most effective driver for changing that mentality would be to lessen the burden of health insurance costs. Mediating the other factor requires re-training job-seekers who lack employable skills.
Many of the long-term unemployed are in the 50 - 60 year age bracket. Expecting people of that age to switch from office/factory work to farm labor is somewhat unrealistic. It may look good on paper, but the wage and physical implications are impractical. Granted: we are looking at this in the narrow focus of our own regional employment opportunities. The April through October agricultural season leaves five unaccounted months. Off-season down time would require wintering on unemployment or looking to retail or food service jobs. In any event, most of this would look very grim to someone with 20 + year work history separated from $40 - 60,000 annual earnings, trying to hold things together until retirement benefits kick in. Holding things together to a large degree means retaining health insurance benefits.
Health insurance benefits is a key consideration. Many older lay-off victims have health issues: carpal tunnel, rotator cuff, bad knees, bad backs- often the result of work-related injury. It is not unusual for over-50 workers to be re-hired and after a year take a three-month leave on workman's comp to undergo an orthopedic procedure. This tendency isn't lost on HR personnel who cull applicants.
We have to take a wider look at this problem without making assumptions. It is not as simple as plugging the unemployed into available jobs. It is not always pride that prevents an unemployed person from taking a low-paying job. Unemployment benefits do not lend to luxury, but when expenses outweigh pay, the choice becomes academic. If one cannot survive on either unemployment or a $10.00 per hour job, one stays on unemployment and pounds the pavement tracking down a better opportunity.
Frankly, I'd like to see a few CEOs, bank authorities and investment brokers out in the fields picking rocks. It might teach them the value of work as opposed to playing with other people's money- screwing up the economy, closing factories, decimating pension plans and cutting employee benefits.
Occupy Wall Street!
The farm jobs should be
The farm jobs should be mandatory for anyone who wants to play highschool football in Genesee County. Clear eyes, pure heart can't lose. The only way to have clear eyes and a pure heart is to be dog dead tired at the end of a day, that's when bodies recharge best.
A well deserved Emmy for Friday Night Lights.
Rex wrote, "You folks mean to
Rex wrote, "You folks mean to tell me that a 50-60 year old can not milk cows? Or drive a tractor or repair stuff? We are in bad shape for sure."
How long will it take to re-train a 60+ female office worker to "repair stuff"?
No doubt there are females who can do that job, but what about those who can't? Where will you FORCE them to work?
You never did answer the question about the farmers' (be that truck farmers or dairy farmers) liability insurance. Will they be FORCED to carry more insurance?
What happens when crops wither in the field because the harvest is delayed by inexperienced help?
I'd be willing to bet that
I'd be willing to bet that almost every single person that voted "yes, weekly payments should be extended." are people who are currently on unemployment and sucking off the state.
There are WAY too many people
There are WAY too many people with the WRONG attitude towards unemployment. (not everyone, but way more than some people would like to admit, the sad thing is if we were being totally honest here most of us would say they know someone that fits one of the 3 attitudes below)
Attitude#1: This is a vacation, its kinda like being a welfare scumbag, but because i did work at one time an my employer technically did pay into it then people wont mind if i abuse it and take it for everything i can, including these extremely wasteful "extensions", because after all it is "insurance".
Attitude #2: When things get slow at a job some people actually REQUEST a lay off because they know they will be getting something for nothing by not working, instead of being scared to death that they may not be working anymore.
Attitude #3: I am used to making X amount of dollars an hour, and i wont accept any job that pays less than that, and who cares because even though unemployment does not fully pay what i am used to getting, i still get something so i can be really picky as to what job i take, if i "decide" to take one. (I hate this one the most)
The correct attitude should be: Unemployment should be an absolute last resort that you accept if you cant find ANY work what-so-ever. People who are working now whether they make 7.00 an hour or 50.00 an hour should be extremely grateful that they are working, there is no such thing as a bad job. If you are making an honest living regardless of your pay you should be extremely proud of yourself. If your not working, you had better have a REAL good explaination, hopefully none of the 3 from above.....
Just for the record, most of my rant is directed towards people younger than 50. The 50 and 60 year olds that have been mentioned in this thread above do have my sympathy because there are some employers that dont exactly look to them when they need to hire, they do tend to look towards youth, ironically its the older people in our society that have the BEST work ethics conversely, its the youth of this country that are extremely lazy and brought up to believe that the gov't will take care of them, and they don't have to work for a living.
Jessica, just to reiterate
Jessica, just to reiterate what has already been posted, employers pay unemployment ins. on all employees.
I worked the onion fields during my high school years, and worked from the time I was 18 until 2008, and never collected unemployment. In 2008, I was layed off, and yes, the unthinkable happened, I signed up for unemployment
benefits. After working for 35+ years, I still didn't like the idea of money for nothing, checks for free, but I realized I still had to eat, pay bills, and buy over priced gas to look for work. If that's sucking off the state,
so be it. The longer one is out of work, the less likely finding a job becomes.
http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot
http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com/2011/06/retired-uaw-member-speaks-col…
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdyLb7ouXUU&feature=related]
When people talk about what
When people talk about what THEY believe others are thinking, it is great insight into the character of the first person. Why? Because it is exactly THAT person's attitude. Everyone tends to judge others by what they would do or how they would feel given a similar situation. In other words, if they accuse the unemployed of being lazy or milking the system it is because it is EXACTLY what they would do or think.
It is easy to blast past ligitimate reasons to refuse a job because it would cost more to get back and forth to work than the job would pay and get right to what they consider the meat of the matter--that anyone without a job should have to take the first thing offered to them. Child care? Medical benefits? Disability? Just pound that square peg into the round hole. Who cares, right?
What has happened to peoples' hearts, if they ever had one?
Jessica, that was just plain
Jessica, that was just plain mean. I voted yes and I have not collected unemployment in over forty years. On the occasion that I was, I looked for work the entire time and was soon rehired at my old job.
Jessica wrote, "I'd be
Jessica wrote, "I'd be willing to bet that almost every single person that voted "yes, weekly payments should be extended." are people who are currently on unemployment and sucking off the state."
I'm one of those who voted 'yes', and no, I'm not collecting unemployment insurance.
That said, I've been with major corporations that did "downsize" and "furloughed" employees. Nice sanitized words, aren't they? For many older people, this scenario has happened more than once.
The first time it happens, a person might be fortunate to find another job quickly. They have skills that are needed in whatever field they work.
The second time it happens, the field in which they worked may be one of many becoming obsolete because of technology. This time, the person collects unemployment while accepting that the skills they have need to be updated or they need to be retrained in another field.
Retraining takes time. It isn't something that happens overnight. Unemployment insurance helps pays the bills while the person is working to learn new skill sets geared to a new career choice.
The third time it happens, most likely due to a stagnant economy, our person is older. Retraining will take time (again). Although there are labor laws that prohibit age discrimination, HR people know how to get around it In some cases, the stock answer is that one is overqualified for the available jobs.
Job or no job, the bills still come in. Rent or mortgage; utilities; insurance; food; medicine; transportation expenses; etc. The person may have never lived beyond their means, but that doesn't mean that there aren't bills.
So, now this person finds themselves in a unique position. They have been trained; they have a work history that shows they were, and can still be, a productive member of the labor force, but there is a glut of fresh out of school young adults also competing for those same jobs. The HR people will hire an entry level before they hire the experienced worker.
Whether that person likes it or not, unemployment insurance is the life line that holds it all together until they can get a job.
You may call it sucking off the state, but most people call it survival until they can pull their lives together again.
By the way, you DO know that people who collect unemployment insurance pay state and federal tax on the money collected?
Well said Howard. Nice dodge
Well said Howard. Nice dodge Rex.
Rex, I haven't seen those
Rex, I haven't seen those dairy jobs posted in any newspapers or job sites, where are they?
When the Nano-Tech course was offered, I signed up for it, only to find out I would have to quit my current job to go to daytime classes. The playing field is very tilted against older workers.
In my opinion, corporate greed is the driving force behind the stagnant economy, They wouldn't bat an eye while throwing hundreds of American workers into the streets and move their operations to some unregulated, unsafe, low paying third world country. They can spew poison into the atmosphere, expose employees to unsafe working conditions, pollute rivers and streams, and at the end of the day, their products appear on American shelves at the same price as when American employees were producing these goods.
Bea, How long is long enough
Bea,
How long is long enough to be on unemployment compensation?
I can't wait till they bring
I can't wait till they bring the war troops back home. I hope they wont apply for unemployment because if they are heroes they will take a job that will pay them crap for all the hard work they did to keep us safe. Not to mention how many people will not be able to get crappy jobs because people will want to hire veterans first. I think it is time to be mad at the system and not the people.
Gabor, most troops will still
Gabor, most troops will still be in the military when they come home. Of course Obama has now asked that up 10,000 be allowed to stay in Iraq, so there is no telling how long your wish will take.
John, I know your question
John, I know your question was for Bea, but I'd like to ask you, at what point should children be allowed to go without basic necessities. At what point should parents have to move out of their homes. At what point should the older worker just shoot themselves?
The social safety networks are here for a reason. YES there will be the slugs who have no intention of looking for work, but just because a few abuse the system, should everyone be thrown to the wolves? People are suffering already.
John, I've been on both sides
John, I've been on both sides of the counter, both as someone who had to claim benefits and one who has worked in that office processing claims. The ideal, of course, would be to look at each case on an individual basis. As much as you and the others who want to cut each person from the same cloth, it just isn't that cut and dried.
There are some who abuse the system...there are some who abuse their power as executives for large corporations; there are some who abuse their positions in law enforcement. Abuse can be found everywhere.
Do we advocate firing all law enforcement because a few of their members are not trustworthy? Do we advocate stopping federal, state and local pensions to civil servants because some have abused the system? Should those pensions have a deadline. After X amount of years, should people lose that benefit?
Stephen Colbert's comment deleted.
Actually, John, it was
Actually, John, it was American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who advocated "keep(ing) as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there." According to a USA Today report, "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta may ask to keep 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but some generals believe a bigger residual force is required, according to published reports." Panetta's exact words were, ""That (keeping troops in Iraq) obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
...From the same USA Today story, "We are operating under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by the previous administration to draw down our forces," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "We are in negotiations, consultations with the Iraqi government about what our relationship with Iraq will look like going forward. We want a normal, productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward."
According to John Glaser of AntiWar.Blog, "They (the Obama administration) strong-armed the Iraqi leadership (who relishes their client state status in contravention of the SOFA and the wishes of the Iraqi people) into letting stay around 4,000 US troops as “trainers” for Iraqi security forces. Of course, that doesn’t include the 5,000-7,000 mercenaries meant to stay there and the 17,000 State Department employees and contractors sticking around, indefinitely, as I reported here. But now Obama is facing strong pressure from conservative hawks to increase the number of US troops to remain in Iraq, from 4,000 to many more thousands."
Reuters reporter Ross Colvin summarized, "The United States is on track to draw down its forces in Iraq to 50,000 by Aug. 31, but there are doubts President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
"As a presidential candidate Obama campaigned to end the now seven-year-old war responsibly, and as president he has been explicit in his assurances to Americans that no troops will remain in Iraq come Jan. 1, 2012.
"Easier said than done.
"While violence has dipped sharply since the height of sectarian warfare from 2006-2007, Iraq remains fragile and its leaders have not resolved a number of politically explosive issues that could easily trigger renewed fighting.
"The United States wants a stable, friendly Iraq, and analysts are skeptical Obama will do anything to jeopardize that.
"Iraq's military chief, the former U.S. general who oversaw the training of Iraq's security forces, and U.S. officials who negotiated the current U.S.-Iraqi military pact are among those who say a U.S. military presence will be needed beyond 2011.
"(Former) defense secretary, Robert Gates, left the door open to that possibility in comments last week while emphasizing that Iraq's new government, still to be formed after an inconclusive election in March, would first have to ask.
"If a new government is formed there and they want to talk about beyond 2011, we're obviously open to that discussion," Gates said."
"His comments were likely not welcomed in the White House, which is carefully sticking to its Iraq talking point for voters before tough congressional elections in November -- the president is keeping his promise to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011."
The most recent comment from Leon Panetta (today) (CNN) -- "The U.S. Secretary of Defense says any agreement reached that keeps American troops in Iraq past an end-of-the-year deadline to withdraw must include immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
"'If they want the benefits of what we can provide, if they want the assistance, if they want the training, if they want the operational skills that we can provide, then I think they have to understand that they've got to give us some protections in that process,' Leon Panetta told sailors Friday during a visit to Naples, Italy, home of the U.S. 6th Fleet.
"Panetta's statement follows news this week that Iraq's top political leadership agreed that a number of American troops should remain in the country to aid in training and security, though said it was "unnecessary" to grant U.S. forces legal immunity."
Your statement, John, would seem to be premature- at best.
Bea wrote, " ... If this is
Bea wrote, " ... If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are ... "
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar…"
It's not the government's job to take care of the poor.
That's not saying the government shouldn't have social services programs, but for God's sake, don't use Jesus to justify it.
You know, separation of church and state.
John it is not my wish at
John it is not my wish at all. Many service members specifically went into service to fight the war not to make it a career. To think that once troops are withdrawn that the government wont try to encourage a reduction in military forces is naive.
The Colbert comment just
The Colbert comment just seemed right for the moment.
I'm still choking on FORCING people into labor camps to work on farms and do something for which they are not qualified or physically able to do because they are unemployed. Is that where we are headed?
One would hope, after so many horrific historic examples of making people second class citizens because of their race, creed, or financial situation that we've learned something. I guess I was wrong.
You are right about the separation of church and state. Perhaps it was a poor place to put that. I hate that we can't just put up new posts for discussion. People, me included, seem to attach those ideas onto existing topics now.
I deleted the Colbert comment.
Since all those on new york
Since all those on new york state unemployment are getting check form the state..Why not make them work for it...Maybe being a crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home..As long as the state is paying for them ..let them go to work for their check...Then we will see how quick the find a job..Plus i would also drug test them...If they can't pass a drug test then they shouldn't get unemployment checks..This thing about how the older people can't work on farms is the same as saying the can't do labor jobs building roads and infrastructure that Obama claims this jobs bill is all about..So what jobs will these 50 year olds be able to do...
Mark is spot on. Lets get
Mark is spot on. Lets get these scumbags working for their handouts. Better yet they can work for Mark raking his leaves.
Mark wrote: "Since all those
Mark wrote:
"Since all those on new york state unemployment are getting check form the state..Why not make them work for it...Maybe being a crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home..As long as the state is paying for them ..let them go to work for their check...
I'll add:
...and in their spare time they can go on interviews; make connections with possible employers; get training.
Mark wrote:
"Then we will see how quick the find a job."
I'll add:
These people are unemployed due to layoffs or businesses going under, not through any fault of their own. Do you really believe that every person receiving unemployment benefits is a deadbeat?
Mark wrote:
"Plus i would also drug test them...If they can't pass a drug test then they shouldn't get unemployment checks."
I'll add:
"Why the assumption that those who lost their jobs are substance abusers?"
Mark wrote:
"This thing about how the older people can't work on farms is the same as saying the can't do labor jobs building roads and infrastructure that Obama claims this jobs bill is all about..So what jobs will these 50 year olds be able to do..."
I'll add:
You pose a good question. Damn those pesky 50 and 60 year olds. They are the people who should be drug tested; FORCED to work for a benefit check; find time, when they aren't working off the amount of that check, to look for gainful employment.
Quite honestly, the drug testing makes it sound like every person who loses a job is a criminal that has to be tracked.
People submit to a drug test when they are considered for a job. No problem with that.
But, to add stress to an already stressful situation by insinuating that you lost your job because of a possible drug problem is unreasonable.
Losing a job, especially for older people, is not a walk in the park. What makes you think it is?
Whatever nest egg you have set aside is quickly consumed as you suppliment that benefit check for the everyday neccessities of life. Maybe I've always run in a different circle, but I don't know anyone who enjoyed not working. That check helps, but it certainly doesn't cover everything, even if one lives frugally.
Now, you are adding a 'work for that check' element. When is one expected to go for those interviews? How does one look for work while working for the check? Do you lose a check if you are invited out of town or out of state for an interview?
The state and federal government gets their share from the income from benefit checks. The recipient does have to pay income tax on that money.
I was out of work for THREE years, Mark. THREE YEARS! During that time, I did collect benefits from California and NYS. Not for the entire three years, but for a little over a year.
Why couldn't I find work? I went on countless interviews. My days were busy looking for a job, any job. The number of rejections was frustrating. The reason? I was over qualified for minimum wage jobs and was told that if they hired me they knew I would leave if a better job came along. I was told that I would be bored by certain jobs. In truth, I would have taken any job offered.
I was fortunate to have my old company in California rehire me as a remote employee so I didn't have to move back west.
Thank God, I didn't have the added pressure of being treated like a criminal because I lost my job. I pity anyone, today, who might have to endure the humiliation of being perceived to be a drug addict; a deadbeat; and a slacker because they lost their job .
I am half-tempted to agree
I am half-tempted to agree with Mark. It sounds logical to expect some reciprocity (and work experience) from/for those receiving unemployment benefits. (Forgetting for the moment that unemployment is a proviso of employer payroll taxes and the benefit-itself is taxable income) It would be wise to consider the repercussions. In the current scheme of things- with hiring freezes, lay-offs and furloughs, germane to the public sector; what message are we sending those formerly and currently employed as "crossing guard,raking leaves in a park..teaching kids to read..working at nursing home?"
With rare exception, Mark, the jobs you mention would fall in the reserve of public employees. By connotation you deem those jobs necessary, while suggesting they should be filled by labor compensated by payroll tax revenue.I suppose we could preserve public jobs by restricting assignment of those on unemployment to positions not vacated by lay-off, but the lowest skill level jobs are the most likely to be shed when public budgets get pinched. To whatever degree, the unemployed would be shuffled into their former jobs at dramatically reduced compensation. ...In effect, stagnating an already depressed pool of available jobs.
It's difficult to separate your new class of worker from indentured servants, share-croppers and prison work-gangs. Are the unemployed the new slave-class rationalized by practicality?
Cuomo and the public employee unions may have agreed in principal to a wage package that averts state lay-offs; the agreement does not encompass local schools and governments making cuts independent of Cuomo's pact with PEF, CSEA, et al. Since August, over 50,000 public sector jobs have been curtailed across the nation. ...That added to 397,000 public jobs purged since 2008. As states divest of public employees to meet billion dollar budget short-falls (employees branded unnecessary by small-government advocates) what measure, the hypocrisy in replacing expended public employees with unemployment recipients?
Well, as the Republicans have demonized the move to apply higher taxes to millionaires and do away with the Bush tax cuts OR as Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) assessed, panning the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "pitting Americans against Americans;" how does indenturing the poor and unemployed differ? Isn't this just a different class war pitting Americans against Americans? Somehow the irony has been lost. The Republicans don't object to Tea Party anti-tax enthusiasm, the ostensibly Middle Class rising up against 'unfair taxation.' (The merit of those sentiments: the upper-crust wins by default.) HOWEVER, when the Middle Class rises up against the cynical, greed-born (if not illegal) manipulation of the market, displacing workers, booting families from their homes, gutting retirement accounts and crashing world economies...
I'm sorry, but the inequity of comparing the hardship of a millionaire to an hourly wage-earner is beyond apples and oranges. This IS class warfare, but the innocent are being vilified.
If someone is collecting benefits who does not deserve them, prosecute the fraud. Don't deprive those who are hurting from rightful benefit.
...And as an historical footnote- In the 1970s GM was having some tough times; the feds (Gerald Ford was in office, Carl Albert was Speaker of the House) made an agreement with GM. Lay-off employees until your house is back in order, and we (the feds) will kick in some extra dough so those laid-off will earn essentially, regular pay. I don't recall much grousing about that deal. In fact the "kid-next-door" was laid-off; 19 or 20-year-old, living at home, working at Delco, bought a muscle car and hung out at the beach all that summer. I was working at Comstock Foods, seven-days-a-week, 5:00 PM to 8:30 AM for minimum wage with overtime after 10 hours. I suppose I was a bit envious... can't blame the kid.
I agree with you whole
I agree with you whole heartedly. Having spent the majority of my life around dairy farming, I can't begin to number the times I've seen farmers, all but franctic for help, but there never seems to be anyone willing, or wanting to get their hand a bit dirty. The people from across the border seem so much more dependable and willing to actually work
Bea, you still dodged the
Bea, you still dodged the question, how long is long enough to collect unemployment?
I remember when in the 1980' when s an Erie County Legislator, Berry Robinson (D), suggested that people receiving welfare checks be required to work at least part time for the public. He suggested as an example cleaning up the parks might be a good idea. He was condemned for suggesting that people work for their check. He was told that having people clean up the parks was undignified and degrading. Of course Erie County had full time civil service park workers who do that job for the parks.
Now we are talking about asking people who are collecting unemployment compensation to go to work after 99 weeks. Bea, working on a farm was given as an example of a type of work that is in need of help. And you know it was an example. While true many older workers might not be able to do farm work, some can. And you might have noticed not all unemployed are in the 50-60 year age bracket.
You deliberately skip the point, how long should we pay? Is 99 weeks enough or 188 weeks? At what point do we say that's it?
And should we raise taxes on employers to pay for longer benefits?
I worked the same job for 20
I worked the same job for 20 years,worked my way through the ranks, and because the company closed its doors, that makes me a scumbag? Why don't we stop all benefits for people and let everyone fend for themselves, can't wait to see the crime rate soar, and the jails fill up. One way or another, it will cost the taxpayers.
It's easy to sit at a computer and tell people they either don't deserve unemployment, or that it should be limited, but until these people end up in this position, they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I keep hearing about all these dairy farm jobs, why is it they never seem to be posted on job boards, or in the newspaper?
What's next, class warfare???
Why would someone who is collecting u.i. take a job that would put less money in their pockets, and actually end up losing money to work a dirty nasty job,only to find out they can't do the work? Attempting to put people to work in the community is another ridiculous idea when considering workers comp., liability ins., and the union screaming scab labor. Sorry folks, it's just not that simple.
Bea, you make an exellent point, it is stressful, and frustrating to be turned down after you've done everything in your power to find a job, only to not hear back from potential employers. Like I said, I would like to see Mark , John, and the rest of the naysayers handle a situation like this, I would be willing to bet they would change their tune in a heartbeat. It's easy to talk BS when your not the one going through the hard times.
Frank, Nobody is suggesting
Frank,
Nobody is suggesting being laid off makes you a "scumbag". The question is, after 99 weeks, close to two years, should you still get unemployment compensation? And if so, for how long?
And to continue paying for more than 99 weeks, we have to get the money from someplace, and that means a higher tax on employers. Will that extra tax help or hurt employment?
John, I'm well aware this
John, I'm well aware this money will have to come from taxpayers, or employers. I, for one can understand what this means for small business owners. Is public assistance the answer after 99 weeks, or should we just do away with U.I.benefits and place all who, through no fault of their own, lost their job on public assistance?
I carried the same attitude towards the unemployed collecting checks without working as many who post here do.
I had a decent job, good benefits, the teamsters, what more could one ask for, I was living the American Dream.
Then the plant closed, 20 years of service down the drain, goodbye 5 weeks vacation, goodbye 401 contributions, goodbye great healthcare package, and goodbye profit sharing.
With all this on your mind, try going to a job interview and be at your very best.
I don't have answers, wish I did, but we as a nation, can't take the survival of the fittest attitude,or can we?
I guess what I'm really
I guess what I'm really asking is this; are we as a people, going to consider the jobless as a liabilty that we, and corporate America, no longer wish to support?, or can't afford to support?
Are we as a people being honest? We can spend billions on the Iraqi's, the Afghans, and are always counted on by the international community to respond to all types of disasters, but are reluctant to take care of our own?
I sure as hell hope this is not what this nation has turned into.
Heard an old song by Steppenwolf the other day, even though it was written about the Vietnam era USA, it sure seemed to still hold it's political message. The song is titled "Monster", give it a listen, it is as scary as it is ironic.
Wow i guess that riled a few
Wow i guess that riled a few people...My point was since the state is allready paying people why not use those talents that they have for all the thing we hear there is no money in budgets for...Like teachers-aides,Nurse-aides,day care workers....the list goes on and on...It could almost be like on the job training..It would teach new skill sets for jobs that are needed..Frank,i never said unemployed were scumbags..because they lost there job..But unless they learn some new skills they could be unemployed for a long time..As far as drug tests go Bea..You have to take one to get a job no matter how old you are,so why wouldn't you have to get one to receive unemployment...You are spose to be able to be ready to work ..Life ain't Fair....I was trying to offer solutions....
Frank,. Support is the issue
Frank,.
Support is the issue and at what level. Since the 1930's the country has decided to support a social safety net. It is called Social Security, welfare and unemployment compensation. As a nation, we are not reluctant to take care of our own, but what is meant by "taking care of"? At a certain point, people will have to move off one form of assistance (unemployment) and on to another (welfare), but when should that take place?
John, when it happens really
John, when it happens really doesn't matter, the cost will remain, we have spent so much time kissing corporate America's ass, that we are afraid to say in simple English it cost money to be in business. Our leaders are nothing more than puppets who wouldn't be in office if not for the wealth of corporate America.
We would rather raise taxes than tell employers they may have to make sacrifices, heavens forbid.
To think the City just spent 55 grand to learn we have bad attitudes, can't imagine how that came about. That would be enough money for a one week extension for 157 people at 350 a week.
Mark, do you think you can just plug people into jobs that were once held by union employees who were laid off due to budget cuts? There is the question of insurance, workers comp, it is simply not that easy, if it were, I'm certain it would have been tried.
Retraining is another problem, who pays for it, it may be cheaper to extend U.I. benefits.
Howard, this was a great poll question, the issues it raises are so complex.
Mark, I agree with you on
Mark,
I agree with you on the drug testing. You nailed the reason for justification of the drug testing to receive any kind of UEI or Public Assistance as well. When people are receiving UEI they are suppose to be able to go to work at any point. Most employers require pre-employment drug test as a condition of being hired.
You didn't have to specifically say people that are unemployed are scumbags, because the tone of your comment implied it.
As for your solutions, well the drug testing was probably the only realistic one. Plugging people into jobs that don't exist because of budget cuts is unrealistic. If you have someone sitting at a cross walk working for the state as a crossing guard, how are they suppose to be out looking for a job?
Frank, Try real hard to
Frank,
Try real hard to remember most of "corporate" American is small business. Sure they'll happy to hear you say it cost them money to be in business. Some of the people who post here are small business owners. Maybe Howard can do a poll of them and ask how many can afford a little more in taxes.
John, either they pay, or the
John, either they pay, or the taxpayers do, like I said, this raises complex issues, are we as a nation ready to turn our backs on our own while pumping billions overseas?
John, when I use the term " corporate America" I'm speaking of all the major players who lobby to protect the status quo. Some of the same who put small business out of business.
Perhaps the secretaries and
Perhaps the secretaries and older white collar workers could take these jobs;
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2614108466.html
From what I've seen on the news, there doesn't seem to be alot of strenuous labor involved. They probably should bring a coat though, winter's coming.