oD forums to restructure and move
Please read and comment on this thread if you want to influence the future of the forums
 IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTEmail & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi Our Authors around the Web
|
 |
Should Unemployed People Work for Free?Should Unemployed People
Oh yea, let’s hash the thing out on a new thread by all means. It’s doubtless an opportunity at unlimited exploitation, so let’s call the programme parasitic exploitation, shall we? Of course it will lead to a dramatic decrease of regular employment, because nobody will pay wages for work they can have just as well for free. It’s a neo-liberal’s dream come true: labour that’s cheaper than slave-labour. The costs for the tax-payer, profits for the employer. I bet they will make it compulsory! 
 Since the state continues to
Since the state continues to pay full unemployment benefits and an additional $240 stipend for child care, gas, etc. it's not exactly "slave wages." And 60% of the people hired for free with a trial employer, receive an offer of full-time employment. Of course, it does require a measure of personal initiative, ambition, and character to participate. It's certainly not a program for parasitic trade union members, so of course I understand why you hate it. But I like your idea of making it compulsory from the stand-point that if you are going to receive state aid, you must participate as a condition of receiving it. That's a great idea! The program began in March of 2003 and is unique to Georgia. Since it began, over 6300 employers have taken part in it, taking on over 8600 workers. Of those 8600, almost 60% of them have been hired due to the program, either by the company they worked for, or, thanks to their new job skills, another company. Because of Georgia Works and its ability to get unemployment insurance recipients back to work faster, $5.2 million dollars have been saved in the state's unemployment insurance trust fund, from which benefits are paid. Should Unemployed People
I got into my previous job on a similar scheme. In theory it's a good idea. However, for everyone like me who ended up with the right job or at least a good one many more were simply exploited as cheap labour by unscrupulous employers. A friend of mine in the employment service remembers that some actually sent reminders at the end of the 6 month placement to flag up the expiry and let them know that another "trainee" would be required soon. In some cases full time employees were sacked and replaced with placements. The claimed savings need to be treated with circumspection. You need to take a long view of how many would have got jobs anyway and how many keep their jobs over an extended period. It doesn't deal with the two main problems of how to create enough jobs in the first place and how to "help" those with difficulties in getting and keeping jobs. To do that you need a properly trained, motivated and remunerated employment service and an economy with some demand in it.
"It doesn't deal with the
"It doesn't deal with the two main problems of how to create enough jobs in the first place and how to "help" those with difficulties in getting and keeping jobs. To do that you need a properly trained, motivated and remunerated employment service and an economy with some demand in it." It doesn't deal with it because it's largely irrelevant. It is not the state's responsibility to "create jobs" and the "help" to workers should be limited to providing them the "access and opportunity" that you advocated earlier. The only thing the state has to do is be a clearinghouse to match up potential employers and workers. The threat of exploitation is absurd. It's a six-week program with OJT occupying much of this period that is completely funded by the employer. The employer gets a chance to judge the competence and character of the employee (ambition and character) and screen out the bad apples (and parasites) with minimal investment. If the state is facilitating a program in which 60% achieve full-time employment, millions of dollars are saved to aid more unemployed workers. It's a win-win-win. Should Unemployed People
Mike, “But I like your idea of making it compulsory from the stand-point that if you are going to receive state aid, you must participate as a condition of receiving it. That's a great idea!” The “great idea” isn’t mine, poor Mikey. It was mentioned in the article you quoted. You should have read it (not just the headline) before posting, then you would have less problems to understand what I am talking about. I didn’t say “slave wages”. Don’t you know that slaves don’t get wages? I said “labour that’s cheaper than slave-labour. The costs for the tax-payer, profits for the employer”. You should apply some ambition to your reading skills. Or is the way you behave in this discussion a matter of your character? BigC, I can’t see why even in theory it should be a good idea. It’s been introduced here as a part of the “Hartz IV” legislation (for which the SPD has been punished by the voter), so we have some experience with it. The kind of job that used to be called “normal” a few years ago (full-time with social insurance) is disappearing more rapidly with it, because employers switch as many jobs as they can into these. Now only 25% of the workforce have a “normal” job. Next idea is of course to butcher social insurance, because “it’s becoming too expensive”. No, it’s the takings breaking away, not the costs rising! In Mike’s words: it’s a win-win-win-win-win-win for parasitic exploiters, but nobody else.
Should Unemployed People
The “great idea” isn’t mine, poor Mikey. Uh yes. I suppose its difficult for you to recognize when people are being facetious. I realize that you would hate the idea...which is why I credited you with it. Alan explained the "slave wages" so no need to belabor the point. Should Unemployed People
“Uh yes. I suppose its difficult for you to recognize when people are being facetious. I realize that you would hate the idea...which is why I credited you with it.” You realize that much?! I had been wondering of course. It could have been an attempt to twist my words… no, you never. That’s why I thought of your reading skills. Next thing will be that you claim you are alive enough to be still learning, I suppose. Oops, English difficult language, same thing in universal: still learning
"Next thing will be that you
"Next thing will be that you claim you are alive enough to be still learning, I suppose. Oops, English difficult language..." The funny part is I don't have to twist your words. All I have to do is quote you. That's okay. I understand its difficult for you. But yes, I believe you stop living when you stop learning. Fortunately for you, I am here to teach you. Some day, when you overcome language barriers, we can begin working on the ideological ones and lead you safely out of Momoland. :-) "Next thing will be that you
Mike, you are hopeless. You sound as if didn’t understand anything. “still learning (aun aprendo)” and the idea that learning is one of the signs of life is another quotation in “Universal”. Do you NEVER look up links? This drawing is famous, have you never seen it or heard of it? (I am of course still coping with the shock of Alan being almost a coyote, but you don’t mean to say that you agree with him, do you?) The link is a treasure, and you can see most of the Prado. Try “Pinturas” and there is an “English” button too.
Everything I posted is
Everything I posted is consistent with "aun aprendo" and in fact, offered my own version that "you stop living when you stop learning." I did look up the painting and I find it inspirational. That's me in another 40 years! And I'll still be wacking you with my cane on the forums and you will have traded your stilettos for old lady shoes. I am committed to lifelong learning and I am taking college courses right now through Brescia University (Go Bearcats!), having just finished final exams and a lengthy research paper. Would you like me to post it so you can pursue aun aprendo as well? Not to shock you, but I agree with Alan. I think it is the height of hubris to suggest that we cannot learn things about ourselves through examples in nature. Should Unemployed People
I didn’t say “slave wages”. "Slave wages" is a common American expression. It has a certain irony and wry humor. Another cultural expression which escapes you. Not your fault for misunderstanding. reminds me of this and this
Should Unemployed People
Well yes Momo I agree with you about what happens to these things in practice. It's part of the socialisation of risk. Profits of course are not socialised. But in theory it really works as an extended interview. It gives the employer the chance to check that you are going to turn up, get on with your fellow workers and not steal anything that's not nailed down. When I took advantage of such a scheme I had been failing to get so much as an interview after months of telephoning, writing and knocking on doors. That's not the way it's supposed to work I know. It was a twelve month scheme here by the way. I was well pissed off by the end of it but at least I had a job. Of course the way it should work is that there should be so much demand that employers would be literally ambushing people in the street and begging them to come to work.
Should Unemployed People
Okay...I have to concede the way it was applied in YOUR case was in fact exploitation. The Georgia plan which is being adopted in other states here is based on a six-week trial. Within 6 weeks you can pretty much tell whether someone is motivated or a parasitic union slug. (gratuitous characterization for Momo's benefit). But the real take-away here is the fact that the program actually worked in your case. Should Unemployed People
BigC Yes, I know how it works. My husband has got his current job through slave-traders aka temporal work, by the way, and they are almost as bad. When I started my first jobs, some employers told me frankly, okay, we have 3 months time to see what you can (nowadays it’s 6 months), before there is any protection against dismissal. It worked as an extended interview too, but there was never a question of doing unpaid work. This only started when unemployment rates became higher, and employers began to exploit them. And it’s pressure on regular wages: one of the reasons why they decrease. The only thing that could help against this: strong trade unions. Let’s hope the workers at Royal Mail have success! Mike, Good to know that even you call BigC’s experience exploitation. It’s exactly where the scheme in Georgia will head to, if the notion isn’t fought in the very beginning.
It’s exactly where the
It’s exactly where the scheme in Georgia will head to, if the notion isn’t fought in the very beginning. There is no evidence of that happening. The program has been in place for 5 YEARS! When do you expect it to start heading down the road of exploitation? Talk about a glass half full! Once again, the program is 6 WEEKS, not 3 months or a year. And it has been a huge success in creating opportunity for the unemployed, stretching public resources to serve more people, and supplying business with a labor pool that they can "try before they buy." It's one of the few government success stories and an example of an efficient model of public policy. Perhaps that's the reason why the program is being adopted in other states. Should Unemployed People
I call it exploitation even now, it’s unpaid work. Employers can always "try before they buy", they can easily sack people, if they find out they made a mistake in hiring someone. You are not telling me that there is protection against dismissal in the US from the first day on, are you? More likely the program is being adopted in other states, because it is another example of costs to the tax-payer, profits to private companies.
Should Unemployed People
Employers can always "try before they buy", they can easily sack people, if they find out they made a mistake in hiring someone. But there is no incentive to do so! In a tough economy, this provides a low-cost incentive to try out a new employee at minimal risk. Nor is the employer subject to lawsuits, complaints, or human resources hassles because the worker technically does not work there. It's being adopted by other states because it puts people back to work FASTER than remaining on the public dole, decreasing cost to the state while facilitating growth in the private sector that brings in tax revenue. That's called being a good steward of public money. As tax payer, I applaud that. Should Unemployed People
As a tax-payer, I would applaud a policy that fights unemployment at the root. That can only be done on the demand side: consumers’ expenses create jobs, nothing else. If unemployed have to work for free, it’s just the opposite policy.
Should Unemployed People
I don't thinky you have anything to worry about. For now, the unemployed do not "have" to work for free. It's a free choice that only those with character and ambition will elect to pursue. Parasitic trade unionists need not apply. Should Unemployed People
Mike, I’m not sure if you know in which tradition you put yourself by using this dehumanising term. It’s a question, my turn to point out cultural differences. I know of course that you want to provoke me, but I’m not sure if you are aware what this kind of provocation connotes in your target audience. Or do you think it's funny? http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2030
Should Unemployed People
Other than the poster looking a bit gay, there's not much humor there. Perhaps self-flagellation is part of the German national psyche. You are busy looking to the past and pull out examples from your Nazi days to make a point today, while I prefer to look at the present and discard it in the future. Trade Unions served a purpose at one time to ensure safe working conditions and fair pay. They became corrupt and self-serving parasitic criminal gangs that extorted more pay for less work. American car companies are crippled by legacy costs of decades of union extortion to the point where they are no longer competitive in the marketplace. So if you want me to understand what the term connotates to you in the past, try and understand what it connotates to me for the future. Should Unemployed People
As I said before, it's not your opinion about trade unions, it's the use of the word "parasite" for any human being. So you weren't aware of it. That's what I wanted to know. Why do you think it’s no longer necessary to fight for safe working conditions and fair pay, although you concede that it was necessary in the past? American car companies are mainly crippled for the reason that they neglected to develop cars that need less fuel. When I was a child a big American car was an admired symbol of wealth, nowadays everybody is thinking of dinosaurs. It’s easily explained, oil prices have risen AND wages are much lower. If you want low wages, you are favouring Korean car companies. As Henry Ford said: “Cars don’t buy cars.” If you want customers for American products (the same is true for Europe, btw.), you must be in favour of higher incomes. If, on the other hand, you want low wages in the US, you must accept that consumers buy only the cheapest goods, and these will never be American. You just can’t have it both ways.
Should Unemployed People
"Why do you think it’s no longer necessary to fight for safe working conditions and fair pay, although you concede that it was necessary in the past?" Those are very important, but we are no longer the same society at the turn of the century industrial revolution where abuses were rampant. Safety is now the domain of the federal government under OSHA and anyone in the work place is well aware of that. The focus of unions has become using their leverage to extort unreasonable concessions from business that result in business costs that make their products no longer competitive. This is the very definition of a parasite--feeding on the host, eventually killing it. "American car companies are mainly crippled for the reason that they neglected to develop cars that need less fuel. That's too simplistic. There are at least a dozen American cars that get better gas mileage than my Lexus. That's not the only quality American consumers want in their vehicles--they want quality and value. American car companies failed to respond to changing market conditions and offer quality products the American people wanted to buy at a price that was competitive with the competition. If, on the other hand, you want low wages in the US, you must accept that consumers buy only the cheapest goods, and these will never be American. I don't accept this. The American people want value in their goods. I buy Chinese or Korean goods when I want something to meet a short term need because I know it will not last. For something I use frequently and want to last, I want the best balance of quality and price--I want "value" and I'm not alone. That's when I look at top-shelf American, German, and Japanese engineering. Should Unemployed People
I know things have changed since Engels described captalism in Manchester. Abuses are no longer rampant, but at least even you don’t say that there aren’t any abuses at all. Good you made that clear, sometimes you sound as if employers were people that can’t do any wrong. “Safety is now the domain of the federal government …” I almost fell off my chair when I read that, I never expected a statement like that from you! Am I really understanding you correctly, Mike: you say that your government can’t be trusted with health care, they would mess it up and you even suspect they would kill Granny. But workers’ safety is best left to that same government, you say. Astonishing. Do elaborate why your government is incapable and even criminal in the one case, but capable, fair and efficient in the other. My government works best when somebody steps firmly on their toes (I suspect that this is true for all governments). Corporate interests have a lot of weight, a single worker has not. The accumulated interests of workers have some weight, in other words trade unions. Wages are negotiated. Again, there is a lot of economic power on one side, the other side has only power if they have an organization: trade unions. If we don’t have them, we will quickly be back at Manchester-capitalism. The only reason why we have safer working conditions and fairer pay now, is because trade unions have fought for them. And these fights were (and are) hard. I didn’t need you for the definition of parasite, by the way, I’ve known it. You didn’t add that parasites are killed whenever possible. “I don't accept this. The American people want value in their goods.” Well, who doesn’t? I just doubt that they can afford it. If you want the level of wages to go Bangladesh, you can expect the consumers going Bangladesh too, no matter if they like it or not. Should Unemployed People
I think its a great program just like the ones I linked to although it is Georgia which leaves a lot to be desired.
Should Unemployed People
"...although it is Georgia which leaves a lot to be desired." More Yankee prejudice. On behalf of the South, I hereby register my objection. Although to be fair, these types of comments generally do not bother my neighbors because it helps limit immigration from the North. We've got enough slow poke, blue hair drivers clogging the roads during snow-bird season. (Momo is NEVER gonna figure out THAT line....he, he.) Should Unemployed People
That looks as if I must try a guess. I know of course how Americans of your generation dye their grey hair, if they aren’t bald like you. And pensioners everywhere like to spend the winter where it’s warm. BTW, that’s what we have an inofficial 17th state for, which is a bit out of the way (otherwise it wouldn’t be warm there), where our old spend the winter, and nobody cares if they behave like what we call “Sunday drivers”. I can imagine how surprised you are about every pedestrian overtaking you, but it’s not their fault. Try to focus on the road in front of you. Admit it, your attempts at opaqueness are as pathetic as your attempts at lucidity. Should Unemployed People
Candace, you are seeing individual unemployed, while I am looking at unemployment in general. The programme is probably helpful for some individuals, but it does not create jobs. What’s more, every policy that lowers wages puts more jobs at risk. Jobs depend on consumers with enough money to buy products.
"The programme is probably
"The programme is probably helpful for some individuals, but it does not create jobs." You are faulting the program for failing to do something it was not intended to do. Where do you get this assumption that it is government's role to "create" jobs in a free market economy? Perhaps Momoland is province in China where the government controls the means of production. The intent of this program is to act as a facilitator and broker to match up the worker's need for apportunity and the employer's desire to screen employees with minimum risk and investment. It achieves the intent and that's more than can be said for most government programs. The fact that Candace knows a few people that have benefited from these types of programs is significant. Given the scope of the program, the odds of her knowing a few people that have benefited suggest either she hangs out with a lot of chronically unemployed people or the program's impact is so wide that it has touched the sphere of her known acquaintances in multiple locations. The latter is more probable indicating a highly effective program. Should Unemployed People
“The intent of this program is to act as a facilitator and broker to match up the worker's need for apportunity and the employer's desire to screen employees with minimum risk and investment.” And why oh why is there any need for this? There is only one reason: the high unemployment rate. If there wasn’t unemployment, employers would look actively for workers, offer them training if necessary, and wouldn’t dream of finding someone to do unpaid work. Where do you get the assumption that it is government's role to set rules that allow a very small minority of the citizens to exploit and even ruin the majority? Well, I know where you get that assumption, but can you please open your eyes for a tiny moment and look where this policy has landed us all? Our states have been hijacked by the neo-liberal parasites, and I intend to get control of them back into the hands of the majority of citizens. If this makes you think of China, it’s you, not me, who has got the wrong ideas about democracy. Should Unemployed People
Momo, That is what people say about hiring people who are in this country illegally. It could be a risky program if you don't get hired at the end of your two months but the maximum amount of time working is only a maximum of 24 hours a week. That should still give you some time to look for work. ------- "All employers have to do is certify that they intend to immediately hire for the position and follow up with a performance evaluation, whether they hire the worker or not. Georgia considers the program valuable on-the-job training, but unlike other training programs, it is not federally funded under the Workforce Investment Act. As a result, Georgia Works is open to all job seekers, not just low-income, disabled or dislocated workers who qualify under federal rules. In addition, there is no need for participating companies to fill out reams of paper to be certified. In Georgia, no legislation was required to launch the unique program." Difficult to see a problem with this unless it was mandatory for receiving unemployment or if you couldn't leave the job you get placed in by Georgia works if you get hired somewhere else. It would be interesting to see how many businesses become involved with this if they had lay offs. Mike, "More Yankee prejudice. On behalf of the South, I hereby register my objection." lol Should Unemployed People
Candace, I know what you are trying to get at of course, I even said the programme was probably helpful for individuals. I just reject the argument that it helps against unemployment. We don’t have unemployment because the unemployed lack ambition and character (or qualification), the reason for unemployment is that there are less jobs than people who need one. You don’t change that by programmes like this. Besides, I don’t trust this policy. We have had this sort of programmes too. Now they are compulsory, last 6 months, the participants get 1 € per hour plus unemployment benefits, but they don’t get a job. In the contrary, more and more normal jobs get lost, typically the jobs you don’t need much qualification for. The work is done by “1€-jobbers”, and employers don’t mind that these have to be replaced after 6 months. Even in 1€ jobs occasionally someone gets a job. If you call the thing a failure or not, just depends on your attitude. You could always blame ambition and character of the majority that doesn’t get a job. “That is what people say about hiring people who are in this country illegally.” Which “that”? "Besides, I don’t trust
"Besides, I don’t trust this policy. We have had this sort of programmes too. Now they are compulsory, last 6 months, the participants get 1 € per hour plus unemployment benefits, but they don’t get a job. In the contrary, more and more normal jobs get lost, typically the jobs you don’t need much qualification for. The work is done by “1€-jobbers”, and employers don’t mind that these have to be replaced after 6 months. Even in 1€ jobs occasionally someone gets a job. If you call the thing a failure or not, just depends on your attitude. You could always blame ambition and character of the majority that doesn’t get a job." Momo Are the people that are qualified for better jobs being placed in unskilled work also? “That is what people say about hiring people who are in this country illegally.” Which “that”?" Momo Oops, well not exactly. When you said that every policy that lowers wages puts more jobs at risk it made me think of a common complaint about employers that hire people who are in this country illegally because they will work for less, mainly Mexicans. Should Unemployed People
“Are the people that are qualified for better jobs being placed in unskilled work also?” Exactly. And that’s the reason why the concept is backfiring now. We have an insurance that pays unemployment benefits for a year, it’s part of our compulsory social insurance. During this time qualification matters. Afterwards it’s tax-funded benefits (for indefinite time), which you lose if you refuse any job, including the 1€ jobs. Very little money, it only lasts for the month if absolutely nothing goes wrong, such as children’s feet growing too fast and so on. People who have saved some money for their old age must use most of it up before they get any benefits at all (and this includes health care insurance). The argument for this legislation was what Mike says: Put some pressure on the lazy and they will start to work. The higher the unemployment rate, the more people notice it can hit them (and has already hit their friends and family), and suddenly the argument sounds less convincing. All the people who are losing their job every week now can’t be just lacking ambition and character. Our politicians are going to have a problem, if they want to keep that fiction. Should Unemployed People
Wow that has got to be devastating. Mike, |
|
openUSA Latest |
We've had an interesting tangent going in the healthcare debate about unemployment. Rather than continue the tangent in the healthcare thread, I think its worthy of its own thread...especially when I heard of this report on the news over the weekend.
I have long been a proponent that one's employment status is strictly an individual's choice to become and remain unemployed. Ambition and character are personal qualities that allow individuals to overcome and adapt to changing market conditions. But there are some who miss the signs in the tea leaves and find themselves in the gap between switching jobs and the skills necessary to do so.
For them, they can sit like parasitic trade unionists and wait for a job to be handed to them, or they can get off their butts and take responsibility for their future. This story drives the Left nuts! Is it exploitation or an opportunity?
Should Unemployed People Work for Free?
More than half a million Americans are filing new unemployment claims each week, relying on state benefits to keep them afloat as they spend their days looking for jobs. But in Georgia, thousands of unemployed people are working without a salary in “auditions” for paying gigs.
Under the Georgia Works program, jobless citizens work part-time for up to six weeks at businesses with job openings. They earn no salary, but the state pays unemployment benefits along with a weekly stipend for transportation, child care, and other expenses. And while the businesses involved don’t issue paychecks, they do provide valuable on-the-job training, according to Michael Thurmond, the state’s labor commissioner. So far, some 3000 Georgians (58% of participants) have been hired at the places where they started working for free. Thurmond calls it a “win, win, win” program that has helped the unemployed find work; saved employers nearly $15 million in labor, hiring, and training costs; and saved the state $5.3 million in benefits it would have paid to people who remained unemployed. At least 17 other states have asked about starting similar programs.
Still, there are critics. Andrew Stettner of the National Employment Law Project says that unemployed workers should spend their time looking for the right job. He fears the Georgia program could lead to mandatory unpaid work for the unemployed if it were replicated in other states. “The purpose of unemployment ought to be to enable people to search for suitable work, not to give employers free labor,” he says
Boring and enraging Liberals with the truth since 2004