Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
um yes companies would, in a heart beat. All anyone needs to look at is how companies right now still get away with breaking child labor laws, hiring illegal immigrants, etc.
Laws exist to curb these practices some are enforced more than others. However, the mere fact a company hires illegal labor doesn't make them evil. As for child labor, outside of a family business which is governed by different rules, where exactly are you finding it to be a pressing issue in the United States?
Quote:
All I need to do is look in my own work to see why I'm glad I am in a union. I have a friend whom is a non union electrician. He's got 9 years experience, gets paid a whopping 20 dollars an hour, pays 75% of his healthcare costs, works 10-12 hour days, no breaks and then his boss tells him to go do something that is against code and makes him do it. 2 days later, a customers garage burns to the ground. Being that the work was against code and done by my friend, legally he is held accountable and the owner says, I never told him to do that. He was liable on criminal charges, cannot do electric work, is civily liable for damages of over 200k dollars etc.
Then your friend is not a professional. Ethics are a two way street. The soldier who is ordered to execute a civilian is just as culpable as the man who gave the order. Duty does not alleviate ones responsibility of being ethical. If your friend new what he was doing was wrong, he should have done it right or refused to do it at all.
Quote:
There are more bad companies out there than you think, and the good companies are only good because they have to. You give them an inch to take and they will take a mile.
Companies are in it to make money, being "fair" never really enters into the equation when profits are at stake.
Quote:
Now you can argue that state government and federal workers shouldnt have unions. They work for the government, I can't see the government abusing employees lol. Teacher, Cops, Firefighters etc definitely should have unions, otherwise Bureaucracy and nepotism dictates who works where and who gets this job and who keeps their jobs (same issue with unions too). Union workers in my line of work are accountable. it doesnt matter if the guy next to me has 40 years in, come layoff time, anyone goes.
Government workers were never allowed to unionize until politicians realized what a strong voting bloc they could become. The general feeling was that it was wrong for a union to hold the public safety hostage. That all changed in 1958 when Mayor Wagner of New York City was in a desperate re-election bid and signed a rule allowing the cities workers to unionize and collectively bargain. This was rapidly followed in many other towns and states for the same reason and finally the fed agreed in 1962 when JFK allowed federal workers to unionize, forever cementing the union-Democrat bond.
The primary difference here is that while private sector unions can strike and shut down a company, they hold no real power over the company as they cannot change the leadership. The dynamic with a public union is very different. Not only can the union engage in negotiations and strikes, but they have the ability to literally vote their "bosses" in and out of office and influence candidates with contributions. You speak of nepotism, well there is no greater nepotism than a public union throwing their weight behind a candidate and later getting concessions that in debt the public.
Quote:
We can argue until we are blue in the face about unions etc but they aren't going anywhere. Have they lost some foothold, sure they have but it's happened before and it will happen again. When the economy finally starts going (whenever that may be)they will pick up the pieces they lost.
I personally think unions had their heyday in the decades immediately following WW2. Since that time their influence and membership has been in constant decline. They had a chance to effect positive change for all workers, but they instead followed the path of greed and enriched themselves. In the case of public unions they enriched themselves at everyone's expense.
You sort of prove my point with your statistics, though you did round the numbers a bit. Total unemployed is about 14.5 million with another 10.6 counted as underemployed, marginal or discouraged. There are currently 3.2 million available jobs in the U.S. If those jobs were filled out of the 14.5 million, then the unemployment rate would be around 7.2%. There would be 3.2 million less on the doll and 3.2 million more providing productivity and paying taxes.
This is way too broad and oversimplified. And you aren't factoring churn. Your 7.2% estimate would only hold true if there was a marginal % of relative job loss. (good luck with that). And those jobs obviously wouldn't all be filled overnight. Companies are reluctant to hire in times of uncertainty.
What are these 3.2 million jobs? Are they part time? Commission based? Do they offer benefits. From the other side I can totally see why somebody would ride out 99 weeks until the bitter end. They are more than likely facing a situation where the only jobs available are paying them less than what unemployment does.
In the end...it will all work out the same, IMO. People are going to bite down and take the pay cut and make the lifestyle adjustment. But it will be done begrudgingly.
Quote:
You are exactly correct that people will do what is in their financial best interest. However, is it in the countries best interest to pay people to do nothing versus filling the available jobs. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement or say that unemployment benefits are bunk, they aren't. What is crazy is giving people almost 2 years of benefits that are generous enough to make them not willing to accept employment as the compensation will just about equal what they are bringing in now.
would you take a $10/hr job if you were collecting $16/hr from unemployment and your spouse provided benefits?
This is way too broad and oversimplified. And you aren't factoring churn. Your 7.2% estimate would only hold true if there was a marginal % of relative job loss. (good luck with that). And those jobs obviously wouldn't all be filled overnight. Companies are reluctant to hire in times of uncertainty.
Churn has actually remained steady throughout the past year. Actually slightly more are being hired than are being let go. The 3.2 million open jobs has remained steady as well.
Quote:
What are these 3.2 million jobs? Are they part time? Commission based? Do they offer benefits. From the other side I can totally see why somebody would ride out 99 weeks until the bitter end. They are more than likely facing a situation where the only jobs available are paying them less than what unemployment does.
The 3.2 million is an aggregate of full time jobs across all employment sectors. Who knows what the exact details are.
Quote:
In the end...it will all work out the same, IMO. People are going to bite down and take the pay cut and make the lifestyle adjustment. But it will be done begrudgingly.
So, do you think we should pay people to sit around for 99 weeks until they accept the inevitable?
Quote:
would you take a $10/hr job if you were collecting $16/hr from unemployment and your spouse provided benefits?
No, but that was the crux of the argument and just FYI unemployment is more like $13.75.
Churn has actually remained steady throughout the past year. Actually slightly more are being hired than are being let go. The 3.2 million open jobs has remained steady as well.
I can't really comment on that. I'd have to consider the source.
Quote:
The 3.2 million is an aggregate of full time jobs across all employment sectors. Who knows what the exact details are.
So.. Is it safe to assume that a good amount of these jobs are commission based (totally or partially)?? And, furthermore, some of these are fly by night operations or scams?
Quote:
So, do you think we should pay people to sit around for 99 weeks until they accept the inevitable?
If they are actively seeking employment within the range of their previous compensations? Yes. Even though, that isn't what I would think defines "sitting around"
Quote:
No, but that was the crux of the argument and just FYI unemployment is more like $13.75.
I can't really comment on that. I'd have to consider the source.
So.. Is it safe to assume that a good amount of these jobs are commission based (totally or partially)?? And, furthermore, some of these are fly by night operations or scams?
If they are actively seeking employment within the range of their previous compensations? Yes. Even though, that isn't what I would think defines "sitting around"
Ok...same question still applies.
The source would be the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
I don't think there is a way to determine exactly what the compensation rates for the jobs are. However, "assuming" that they are all undesirable commission based jobs or are "scam" companies probably is "assuming" a little too much. Especially considering that the data is being reported to the government across industry sectors.
Well, I will answer your question with a question. How long do you think it is reasonable for someone to receive unemployment benefits while they look for a job that pays them similar compensation? 26 weeks? 52 weeks? 99 weeks? 208 weeks? As long as it takes?
I don't think there is a way to determine exactly what the compensation rates for the jobs are. However, "assuming" that they are all undesirable commission based jobs or are "scam" companies probably is "assuming" a little too much. Especially considering that the data is being reported to the government across industry sectors.
Well, I will answer your question with a question. How long do you think it is reasonable for someone to receive unemployment benefits while they look for a job that pays them similar compensation? 26 weeks? 52 weeks? 99 weeks? 208 weeks? As long as it takes?
Fair enough... But in regards to the job market. I know a few things.
1 - in times like this a job is MUCH easier to come by through means of a network. Many people don't have this luxury.
2 - Many jobs listed in the paper, on career searches, forums, and agencies are sales.
It is speculation, but I think it is a safe wager to think a good percentage are not solid employment opportunities. On the same token, it is speculation to assume a good portion of those jobs aren't bunk opportunities.
I'd also like to know what percentage of those jobs are professional careers which do not cater to somebody who doesn't have a professional background.
These are all important factors.
And regarding term of unemployment...
I don't know? That's pretty subjective. Maybe somebody should be allowed to collect based on how much they have put it or abused the system in the past. And it isn't something I have given much thought.
But... Let me ask you this.
Should somebody be allowed to collect longer in times of recession and/or depression like this?
When was the last time you have seen the economy this bad?
i wish someone would offer a cable service where you pay only for the shows/channels you actually watch. they bundle all these crap channels that bump up the price and offer no value.
Yes, definitely. I'm only interested in maybe 20 channels, including locals. I'd like to be able to subscribe to just those channels. As it is, aside from locals, I only get three chanels I'm interested in because I'm on the cheapest package. I watch too many movies on DVD to justify paying more, and I'm definitely not going to pay $100 per month or something just to get the channels I'm interested in AS WELL as 200 or whatever I'd never watch.
Fair enough... But in regards to the job market. I know a few things.
1 - in times like this a job is MUCH easier to come by through means of a network. Many people don't have this luxury.
2 - Many jobs listed in the paper, on career searches, forums, and agencies are sales.
It is speculation, but I think it is a safe wager to think a good percentage are not solid employment opportunities. On the same token, it is speculation to assume a good portion of those jobs aren't bunk opportunities.
I'd also like to know what percentage of those jobs are professional careers which do not cater to somebody who doesn't have a professional background.
These are all important factors.
Again, I don't know what the make up of the jobs are and I won't make assumptions on them. However, I do think it is reasonable to assume that if people had no safety net then any job would be better than no job. We also need to assume that some of these workers are in industries that may never recover.
Quote:
And regarding term of unemployment...
I don't know? That's pretty subjective. Maybe somebody should be allowed to collect based on how much they have put it or abused the system in the past. And it isn't something I have given much thought.
But... Let me ask you this.
Should somebody be allowed to collect longer in times of recession and/or depression like this?
When was the last time you have seen the economy this bad?
Unless you're in your 80's, I doubt anyone has ever seen the economy this bad.
While the immediate reaction would be that yes, in times of 'trouble' it is logical that the safety net would be expanded. However, economic theory would hold that the market needs to correct and that labor is elastic. As the pool of labor increases, wages should drop; basic supply and demand. If wages are not allowed to drop, then recovery is stalled.
Maybe we should think about it this way. Should we be paying people to search for jobs or should we be supporting people while they retrain and acquire marketable skills? I think a combination of basing benefits on accrued credits, e.g. similar to social security you accrue credits based on your time in the workforce that then qualifies you for a certain period of compensation. Add to that giving people the incentive of having their unemployment while they train to join industries with demand or complete higher education to reshape the workforce to meet future needs.
Afterall, the bulk of the unemployed are young unskilled workers and older workers that lack the skills to compete. We shouldn't be expected to support these folks ad infinitum, but I would be willing to help them become employable.
Again, I don't know what the make up of the jobs are and I won't make assumptions on them. However, I do think it is reasonable to assume that if people had no safety net then any job would be better than no job. We also need to assume that some of these workers are in industries that may never recover.
I agree.. With no safety net people would have incentive to take what they can.
Quote:
Unless you're in your 80's, I doubt anyone has ever seen the economy this bad.
While the immediate reaction would be that yes, in times of 'trouble' it is logical that the safety net would be expanded. However, economic theory would hold that the market needs to correct and that labor is elastic. As the pool of labor increases, wages should drop; basic supply and demand. If wages are not allowed to drop, then recovery is stalled.
Maybe we should think about it this way. Should we be paying people to search for jobs or should we be supporting people while they retrain and acquire marketable skills? I think a combination of basing benefits on accrued credits, e.g. similar to social security you accrue credits based on your time in the workforce that then qualifies you for a certain period of compensation. Add to that giving people the incentive of having their unemployment while they train to join industries with demand or complete higher education to reshape the workforce to meet future needs.
Afterall, the bulk of the unemployed are young unskilled workers and older workers that lack the skills to compete. We shouldn't be expected to support these folks ad infinitum, but I would be willing to help them become employable.
The NJLWD has plenty of resources to help people become more employable. Realistically, somebody can collect a full 99 weeks and get their AA or if they already have an associates they can complete their BA. On state dime while getting their weekly benefit. And many have!
One issue is it being an employers market. Employers are much more selective. When you consider you have people with Masters degrees jumping down a bracket, the sliding scale rule applies...People are getting bumped down and overqualified people are filling these positions.
Some employers just don't care for entry level and training from the geound up. How many people went for their MCSE and CCNA certs but don't have relative I.T. experience? Somebody with 4-5 years experience and NO cert will get that job. Because they can just pay for him to go get that cert....but they would rather not do that because then, of course, they would have to pay him/her a higher salary grade.
Then what about criminals? Do people not deserve a second chance? Criminial background checks have become ever so scrutinizing. Employers are turning prospective employees down for arrests...not even convictions....ARRESTS. Then you even have consumer reports being run and some companies will not hire you if your FICO isn't within a specific range. What if somebody has went through a bad divorce? There are circumstances and this is life, sh*t happens. Not saying all employers will not hear somebody out and give them the opportunity to be candid. But many employers have grown extremely judgmental in todays society.
I agree.. With no safety net people would have incentive to take what they can.
The NJLWD has plenty of resources to help people become more employable. Realistically, somebody can collect a full 99 weeks and get their AA or if they already have an associates they can complete their BA. On state dime while getting their weekly benefit. And many have!
One issue is it being an employers market. Employers are much more selective. When you consider you have people with Masters degrees jumping down a bracket, the sliding scale rule applies...People are getting bumped down and overqualified people are filling these positions.
Some employers just don't care for entry level and training from the geound up. How many people went for their MCSE and CCNA certs but don't have relative I.T. experience? Somebody with 4-5 years experience and NO cert will get that job. Because they can just pay for him to go get that cert....but they would rather not do that because then, of course, they would have to pay him/her a higher salary grade.
Then what about criminals? Do people not deserve a second chance? Criminial background checks have become ever so scrutinizing. Employers are turning prospective employees down for arrests...not even convictions....ARRESTS. Then you even have consumer reports being run and some companies will not hire you if your FICO isn't within a specific range. What if somebody has went through a bad divorce? There are circumstances and this is life, sh*t happens. Not saying all employers will not hear somebody out and give them the opportunity to be candid. But many employers have grown extremely judgmental in todays society.
All of those are very valid points. However, it doesn't address the crux of the issue. How long should we pay people to remain unemployed? Should it be forever simply because the person can't find a job that matches what they want or what their skill set is?
Employers get swamped with applications and they are constantly falling back on measurable numbers and qualifiers to weed out candidates. I can agree that what some employers are doing is questionable. For instance, I can't discriminate based on sex, religion or race, but somehow it's OK to discriminate based on FICO? I do think that is unreasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
