US Politics Zero Hour - the Partisan Edition

[ThinkerX]

I spent some time talking with a relative of mine in Washington state lately. For a long time he held two jobs: the first, during the winter, as a sort of handyman for area (private) schools, the second teaching handyman skills.

Initially, with the way the second job was set up (asolutely byzantine government program), he was teaching refugees from places like Iraq. These people, by and large, jumped right into it, and even in this lousy economy, most of them found handyman type jobs within a few months of leaving the class.

However, this started to change a couple years ago - about the time the stimulus program took off. Instead of refugees from overseas, most of the people he was training were natural born US citizens - and they had absolutely zero interest in a handyman career. Many of them made it very clear to him that they were there soley to remain on long term unemployment; they also made it clear they found the work demeaning and the pay horrid ($14-$16 an hour). My relative became so disgusted with this mentality he dropped out of the program completely a few months ago.

[Shryke]

By "about the time the stimulus program took off", you mean "just after the economy took a dip in the shit-pile", right?

[ThinkerX]

By "about the time the stimulus program took off", you mean "just after the economy took a dip in the shit-pile", right?

Perhaps I was not clear enough: circa 2008/2009, most BUT NOT ALL of the people he was training stopped being refugees from overseas and instead were out of work US citizens. Even during that time period, though, the refugee types still in the program were finding handyman type jobs; but the US citizen types, for the most part were flat out refusing to even look - again, they made it *VERY* clear they were there soley for extended unemployment benefits, and found the actual work and pay beneath them.

[Tempra]

We should protect fat, short and ugly people before the unemployed. At least there is real evidence suggesting there is a pervasive problem.

[The Progressive]

Well you could cover both group with this law since fat, short and ugly tends to be unemployed as well.

Double win! ;)

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't know why I keep coming to read these threads, all they end up doing is making me depressed.

[TrackerNeil]

None of mine or anyone else's business what hiring criteria an employer has.

Unless of course those criteria involve race, age, sex, or any one of a hundred other protected classes as defined by law. Then it is very much "anyone else's business."

[Shryke]

I don't know why I keep coming to read these threads, all they end up doing is making me depressed.

Reality is depressing.

Shit, go read up on the future of the oceans for a "fun" time. Don't do so in reach of razors.

[Commodore]

Unless of course those criteria involve race, age, sex, or any one of a hundred other protected classes as defined by law. Then it is very much "anyone else's business."

rather, it shouldn't be

[The Kassi (mark two)]

It's discrimination based on employment status.

None of mine or anyone else's business what hiring criteria an employer has.

For the first line, having a job is a sign of merit. This is even more true if you have had it for years rather then months. It illustrates stability. That is why 'I am unemployed and live at home' is a really bad pickup line. In addition, taking a job you are extremely overqualified for rather then accepting unemployment shows work ethic that should be respected. The people who go from positions of responsibility to Micky D's, convenience stores, or call centers always go to the top of my pile.

Discrimination means ignoring merit in favor of what is usually some form of prejudice. This does not qualify.

For the second line, it most certainly is. I doubt either of us would eat a joint that had a 'Blacks need not apply' policy. It however is not the government's business.

[Commodore]

This does not qualify.

Not legally, but it's still an exclusion based on a distinction, i.e. discrimination.

For the second line, it most certainly is. I doubt either of us would eat a joint that had a 'Blacks need not apply' policy. It however is not the government's business.

Not our business to interfere in the affairs of others is what I meant.

[Shryke]

Perhaps I was not clear enough: circa 2008/2009, most BUT NOT ALL of the people he was training stopped being refugees from overseas and instead were out of work US citizens. Even during that time period, though, the refugee types still in the program were finding handyman type jobs; but the US citizen types, for the most part were flat out refusing to even look - again, they made it *VERY* clear they were there soley for extended unemployment benefits, and found the actual work and pay beneath them.

Were they overqualified for the job?

[Lord Mord]

Commodore,

None of mine or anyone else's business what hiring criteria an employer has.

That doesn't seem appropriate in the least. I am not without misgivings, but it seems to me that employment is such a basic function of survival, nobody should have the right to fuck with it, except with damn good reason, i.e. competency and trustworthiness. "Eeeww, boys are icky!" is at such a level utterly immoral bullshit and, given the stakes should be punished accordingly.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

Not legally, but it's still an exclusion based on a distinction, i.e. discrimination.

That would be nothing more then an annoying trick of words, as under such a definition all non random choices would be discriminatory.

Not our business to interfere in the affairs of others is what I meant.

I would still strongly disagree. It is our responsibility to see the death of any business we believe unethical, so long as we are able to do so without violence or it's threat. We might have shrugged that responsibility off on the government, but that is a failing on our part. It doesn't absolve us of our responsibility.

Boycott and buycott alike are the duties of anyone given a choice in what they purchase, so it is very much our business in a metaphorical and literal sense.

Commodore,

That doesn't seem appropriate in the least. I am not without misgivings, but it seems to me that employment is such a basic function of survival, nobody should have the right to fuck with it, except with damn good reason, i.e. competency and trustworthiness. "Eeeww, boys are icky!" is at such a level utterly immoral bullshit and, given the stakes should be punished accordingly.

Then don't due business with such people. It is your obligation to reject the idea of buying or providing goods or services to anyone you think immoral. As such is the case, it is silly to punish people for establishing their own guidelines for who they will and will not conduct business with.

[MinDonner]

Perhaps I was not clear enough: circa 2008/2009, most BUT NOT ALL of the people he was training stopped being refugees from overseas and instead were out of work US citizens. Even during that time period, though, the refugee types still in the program were finding handyman type jobs; but the US citizen types, for the most part were flat out refusing to even look - again, they made it *VERY* clear they were there soley for extended unemployment benefits, and found the actual work and pay beneath them.

Phew! That settles it then. Some unemployed people are lazy scroungers, therefore they all are. It's not discrimination, it's facts!

[ThinkerX]

Phew! That settles it then. Some unemployed people are lazy scroungers, therefore they all are. It's not discrimination, it's facts!

Leaping to conclusions, are we?

I would point out that I have seen examples of the mentality described by my relative elsewhere - even here. Remember a couple of long term unemployed posters we had here, who decided it would be more profitable for them to remain on unemployment rather than apply for jobs paying less than that? Even though they would likely have gotten such jobs?

Then we have posters here who went from making a great deal of money to 'just getting by' tending bar or some such.

Were they overqualified for the job?

I talked with my relative quite a bit about this. The people in question were actually a bit of a mixed bag: some had serious blue collar experience, others were former white collar types. This program, as I understand it, was part of the job retraining package that went through during the stimulus (I could be wrong, though, my relative described the funding/upper level organization as a nightmare - though his wording was less polite). It was just that collectively, the US citizen types found the handyman profession and attendant pay to be beneath them.

I would argue that somebody who turns their nose up to often is likely to fall into a deeper hole than before out of ...professional arrogance, for want of a better term.

[Shryke]

Leaping to conclusions, are we?

I would point out that I have seen examples of the mentality described by my relative elsewhere - even here. Remember a couple of long term unemployed posters we had here, who decided it would be more profitable for them to remain on unemployment rather than apply for jobs paying less than that? Even though they would likely have gotten such jobs?

Then we have posters here who went from making a great deal of money to 'just getting by' tending bar or some such.

You realise that's part of the point of unemployment right? You don't want people just taking any old job that comes along, as that can often be a waste of valuable skills.

I talked with my relative quite a bit about this. The people in question were actually a bit of a mixed bag: some had serious blue collar experience, others were former white collar types. This program, as I understand it, was part of the job retraining package that went through during the stimulus (I could be wrong, though, my relative described the funding/upper level organization as a nightmare - though his wording was less polite). It was just that collectively, the US citizen types found the handyman profession and attendant pay to be beneath them.

I would argue that somebody who turns their nose up to often is likely to fall into a deeper hole than before out of ...professional arrogance, for want of a better term.

Well, again, they may be correct in a sense to turn down lower skill work in search of better work.

There is also though a serious culture force at work here. I can certainly see more white-collar workers not wanting to take up blue-collar jobs.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

Phew! That settles it then. Some unemployed people are lazy scroungers, therefore they all are. It's not discrimination, it's facts!

Has nothing to do with it. It isn't discrimination because employment is a sign of merit. An unbroken work history is even more valuable. Discrimination is when you abandon merit, not when the method you used to evaluate it is unsympathetic. In this case identifying it as a form of discrimination is simple hyperbole.

Well, again, they may be correct in a sense to turn down lower skill work in search of better work.

There is also though a serious culture force at work here. I can certainly see more white-collar workers not wanting to take up blue-collar jobs.

You can continue to search for work while you are currently employed. If this wasn't the case, this debate wouldn't be taking place. Unemployment is for people who can not find work, not for folks who dislike their options and wish wait until something they prefer opens up.

Doing the work you can get while you look for something better is a fantastic expression of work ethic that should be respected. As this is the case, it looks far better on a resume then collecting unemployment.

[Shryke]

Has nothing to do with it. It isn't discrimination because employment is a sign of merit. An unbroken work history is even more valuable. Discrimination is when you abandon merit, not when the method you used to evaluate it is unsympathetic. In this case identifying it as a form of discrimination is simple hyperbole.

In what way is employment a sign of merit? Are the 15 something million americans unemployed right now lacking in merit? Are they lacking some essentially quality that makes them good workers?

More then likely, the shit economy killed their job through no fault of their own and they can't find a new one because, again through no fault of their own, said job may not even exist.

An unbroken work history is a sign of luck or a specific set of circumstances, not merit. Being already employed is certainly a sign someone thought you were worth hiring, but it registers way way down on the list of shit that actually matters about how qualified you are for another job.

You can continue to search for work while you are currently employed. If this wasn't the case, this debate wouldn't be taking place. Unemployment is for people who can not find work, not for folks who dislike their options and wish wait until something they prefer opens up.

Doing the work you can get while you look for something better is a fantastic expression of work ethic that should be respected. As this is the case, it looks far better on a resume then collecting unemployment.

No, unemployment is for people who don't have work. If it was for people who can't find work, it wouldn't kick in right away and then go away eventually.

The purpose is to bridge the gap between one job and another. In large part so they don't have to waste time flipping burgers when they could be spending that time getting a better job.

Looking for work is a job. It's something you have to devote time to. Occasionally large amounts of time. Having another job reduces the amount of time you have to do that.

There is nothing "fantastic" about someone working a job they are massively overqualified for in order to keep food on the table. What work ethic is displayed here? There is no "work ethic" in the survival job. It's also a drag on the economy and a waste of time/money/resources.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

In what way is employment a sign of merit? Are the 15 something million americans unemployed right now lacking in merit? Are they lacking some essentially quality that makes them good workers?

More then likely, the shit economy killed their job through no fault of their own and they can't find a new one because, again through no fault of their own, said job may not even exist.

An unbroken work history is a sign of luck or a specific set of circumstances, not merit. Being already employed is certainly a sign someone thought you were worth hiring, but it registers way way down on the list of shit that actually matters about how qualified you are for another job.

You are arguing that being valued and productive isn't a sign of merit. That is just silly. A job is a measure of status for a reason. In addition, luck has very little to do with an uninterrupted work history. An example of how you can achieve an uninterrupted work history absent luck is by taking a lower level job while you look for something better.

A willingness to work the best job you can get and or competency is all that is required. Some might consider the first demoralizing, others find the idea of drawing unemployment benefits rather then working for your check is viewed by many as equally if not more demoralizing.

Given the choice, there are a lot of valid reasons to favor the second group. Picking from the second group isn't discrimination.

No, unemployment is for people who don't have work. If it was for people who can't find work, it wouldn't kick in right away and then go away eventually.

The purpose is to bridge the gap between one job and another. In large part so they don't have to waste time flipping burgers when they could be spending that time getting a better job.

Looking for work is a job. It's something you have to devote time to. Occasionally large amounts of time. Having another job reduces the amount of time you have to do that.

There is nothing "fantastic" about someone working a job they are massively overqualified for in order to keep food on the table. What work ethic is displayed here? There is no "work ethic" in the survival job. It's also a drag on the economy and a waste of time/money/resources.

Don't know about your country, but that is not true here. Unemployment often doesn't kick in right away and you have to be ready to prove you have been actively searching for work upon request, or you have to pay the benefits you received back. Given that you can be penalized for failing to keep a record the effort you pour into your job searching, it is just about impossible to argue it is not for people who can not find work.

As for evidence of work ethic, you yourself outline why it is harder to find a job while working then while unemployed. Picking up a lower paying job to get you through also does not drag down the economy. If no alternate job is available, then you are not taking a job from an unskilled worker and leaving one vacant.

Besides, if there are fewer jobs then people looking, positions are not being left vacant unless people are turning up their nose at positions they think are beneath them and instead cashing check issued by the government. The government might not penalize you for refusing a job at a call center and earning ten bucks an hour instead of waiting for a position that pays twice that. Employers however may favor those who make a different choice without being discriminatory.

Discrimination isn't about favoring the choices one group makes over another, at least not the choices relevant to employment. If it was, requiring an education would be discriminatory.