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.
How is the woman applying for jobs when watching her children? If that's the argument it doesn't add up unless of course your just looking for a free ride. Somebody needs to watch my kids, who's gonna pay for my gas money to get to the volunteer place, who will insure me while I volunteer, I can hear all the cries now. Work is like the plague to many nowdays.
Stay away from this. I know it seems sensible on the surface, but think ahead to where this could go.
It would then be in the government's interest to have people on the "unemployment/volunteer" role to get stuff done at low wages and no benefits. That sets government against private business to me.
SC bill would require the unemployed to Volunteer to receive benefits.
The senior attorney of the National Employment Law Project says Campbell's bill conflicts with federal law. George Wentworth says it also feeds negative stereotypes of the unemployed.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- If unemployed workers in South Carolina can't find a job in six months, they would have to volunteer 16 hours weekly to continue getting a check under a bill up for debate by a Senate panel.
Thoughts?
Good idea but I'm sure the liberals will cry foul.
So, if some corporation makes risky investments that fail, but fire people so their bonuses aren't affected, it's the fault of the employee?
I know there is a lot poor people bashing/'if you're not working it's all your fault' around, but this is just ridiculous. It's assumeing everyone that isn't working is just some lazy POS.
Actually if you dare suggest to get prisoners to go out and clean up a park or something your accused of violating their rights along some line or other or abuse etc. I can only imagine making folks have to go out and actually do something to collect free money and the squeals soon to follow.
So, if some corporation makes risky investments that fail, but fire people so their bonuses aren't affected, it's the fault of the employee?
I know there is a lot poor people bashing/'if you're not working it's all your fault' around, but this is just ridiculous. It's assumeing everyone that isn't working is just some lazy POS.
Said employee can go find another job. You get six months to find a job before you have to do the ghastly task of volunteering for 16 hours a week to get free money.
Stay away from this. I know it seems sensible on the surface, but think ahead to where this could go.
It would then be in the government's interest to have people on the "unemployment/volunteer" role to get stuff done at low wages and no benefits. That sets government against private business to me.
Just got a bad feeling about that one...
My state also wants to drug test the unemployed. If you test positive,...bye bye benefits...
Do you think they should drug test the unemployed?
How about the Welfare recipients?
I say YES to both.
I was not drugged up when I received unemployment, so I have to side with the fact that nobody should be high, passed out on the couch and receiving unemployment.
I would like all our elected representatives to be drug-tested once a year on the job. Then, I may be open to some of these brilliant ideas they have.....
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.
