-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Work for unemployment
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Absolutely!
As long as unemployment checks are being paid, there isn't any reason why someone can't give, say, 20 hours per week in community service. That leaves 20 hours per week to search for work, plus the remaining hours per week to do whatever.
"Community Service"
1. Do whatever is needed for legit local charities, whether it's peeling spuds for a fundraiser or building a wheel chair ramp for a person in need.
2. Specific jobs for local government to help them meet their budgets. Specific in that no one should be a chaffeur for a local mayor in a small town. Specific as in working in the public library so the operating hours can be extended. (Ours is closed most of the time the working public can use it.)
As long as unemployment checks are being paid, there isn't any reason why someone can't give, say, 20 hours per week in community service. That leaves 20 hours per week to search for work, plus the remaining hours per week to do whatever.
"Community Service"
1. Do whatever is needed for legit local charities, whether it's peeling spuds for a fundraiser or building a wheel chair ramp for a person in need.
2. Specific jobs for local government to help them meet their budgets. Specific in that no one should be a chaffeur for a local mayor in a small town. Specific as in working in the public library so the operating hours can be extended. (Ours is closed most of the time the working public can use it.)
I dont think so. They should be expected to put all there free time into finding jobs ....then they should be made to prove it via e-mail & monthly visits to the Unemployment office. As you know, there really arnt allot of jobs out there so why penalize a person for being unemployed? you should penalize someone for taking unfair advantage of taxpayers .....thats called "GRAFT"
How is it volunteer work if it is required work and why should emplowers pay unemployment to people doing work for places who don't pay? For that to even begin to make sense, the person on unemployment would do work for the company they worked for, which is a scam waiting to happen if companies can force the former employee to do the same work for a fraction of the cost simply by laying them off.
Once unemployment benefits start to run out for a large number of people - as is already happening currently - how long would it take for the government decide that charitable work needs to be a permanent paid position at the taxpayers expense?
How long before someone decides that God is calling them to collect unemployment rather than working so that they can volunteer for charitable work?
How long before someone decides that God is calling them to collect unemployment rather than working so that they can volunteer for charitable work?
Gina has a Point...
...but, I agree with your concept, Salty, I believe all of those who are on entitlement programs, including unemployment (only if they are not actively conducting a job search) to do some kind of work. Just think of the huge talent pool out there that the fed, state and local governments could be using to offset higher budget costs, and catch up and stay on top of backed up work loads.
It's an idea that needs to be explored by our forever divided Congress! :type:
...but, I agree with your concept, Salty, I believe all of those who are on entitlement programs, including unemployment (only if they are not actively conducting a job search) to do some kind of work. Just think of the huge talent pool out there that the fed, state and local governments could be using to offset higher budget costs, and catch up and stay on top of backed up work loads.
It's an idea that needs to be explored by our forever divided Congress! :type:
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
This is a misconception that I hate. I will agree that a 40hr/wk job that will support a family is harder to come by right now. But I have never had a problem walking into a fast food place and getting hired on the spot. In fact, I have had two full time fast food jobs at once in order to make enough money to support my family. Working 80 hours a week is not fun. But the fact that people won't do it shows how lazy our society has become. People need to get off their derriere's and do what needs to be done to survive, instead of being lazy and asking taxpayers to support them. :BangHead:
plain_n_simple
Active Member
When you have a fender bender, do you do charity work for the insurance company? No. This is why it is called unemployment insurance, X amount is put into a fund for each employee earning X amount for each quarter, regulated by states.
The idea has already started to morph into something else in this short thead...
From working for charities to working for the government.
Sounds like a bad idea...
How long before the government then decides that those unemployed volunteer working people need health insurance and paid vacations?
How long before those unemployed volunteer government workers should be unionized?
Sounds like a just another step down long downhill slide towards as many people as possible working for the government so that the established political class can reallocate yet more tax dollars towards establishing a permanent dependent class of voters.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as it's been a long time since I had to deal payroll taxes, collection, reporting, etc. Back then, if memory serves, unemployment taxes were paid by the employer and not the employee.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong. When the funds collected by the state from employers are depleted, the fed comes in and assists with monies collected from the general population's income taxes.
When I cause a fender bender, the insurance payments I've personally paid are used to help cover the damages. When I receive compensation for being unemployed, the premiums were paid by someone else.
Agree that the concept is a slippery slope with our current political environment. If allowed to happen, all the negatives mentioned will happen with doing "charity" work while on unemployment compensation. Ideally, the whole system of unemployment benefits should be scrapped. Along with social security, medicare, etc. that keep so many in bondage to Ceasar.
That said, acknowledged, we are still required to eat by the sweat of our brow. Receiving unemployment dollars without paying the insurance premiums or working in some manner for them isn't sweating to eat.
Two things - as you mentioned - funds FOR each employee - Keep in mind, you the employee does NOT pay into unemployment - rather it is the employer!
Second, I could see for the first month or two where such volunteer work would not be required.
I think one reason that the ideal was brought up was because of the excessive time that people do stay on unemployment - ie 99 weeks - folks that is a year and a half.
Even if you only give 20 hours a week, that still leaves plenty of time to job hunt. And I am sure that a volunteer worker would have no problem informing charity, I can not come in on Tues, as I have a job interview.
I'm wondering how many of you actually read the link in the OP - as it did give many benefits if such a program was implemented.
I will also admit that many here have seen some possible pitfalls. This is healthy discussion - because if such a program was started - than provisions would be made for such situations.
(now you may understand why it takes Congress so long to pass a bill)
Overall I am for the program - with provisions as stated in this thread.
Thanks for all your input - pro and con.:thumbs:
I've been thinking about my post. While yes, employers pay unemployment, the money is paid to the state and pooled, right? It's still technically the company that is paying for the employee, but since it is paid to the state, it's not like they're actually cutting a check to them and if the company goes under and is no longer paying ANYONE and hasn't paid enough for employees to receive full benefits, the money still gets paid. (or used to, now that states are broke, that's become an issue)
So maybe it really does make it more conceivable to have a person work elsewhere to earn unemployment benefits.
I still am thinking that calling it volunteer work is messed up. It is important for people to understand the difference between doing something for God's glory (or if they're not saved, for no benefits) and for people to retain the idea that we can all pitch in and do something for others without getting something in return. Forcing that issue would be detrimental to how humans should think and act. We need more people to do things for others from the heart and not expect things in return. We're spoiled enough here in the United States!
How about doing what I've seen the welfare department do in some areas? I remember a job I had in Oregon. A lady came in who had applied for welfare benefits. She was physically able to work. She told me they allowed her to receive benefits for either 30 or 90 days, then she had to start working for her benefits. It wasn't charity work. They helped her find places that were hiring and the place I was working at was hiring, so they talked to the boss and I don't know exactly how it worked, but she came in and worked and if I have it right, she didn't get paid from the job, but she still received welfare benefits. I *think* my workplace may have paid a portion of it to the welfare department, then again they may not have. She had x amount of time to prove herself and then the company could decide to hire her or say they didn't want her there anymore.
Wouldn't that be a great system for those on unemployment? They're still working, not losing their pride, and given the opportunity to do work with the prospect of actually getting hired into it.
Now for the girl I'm talking about in particular, it was a nightmare for us. She wanted welfare, not work, and did everything she could to to get fired because if she quit, her benefits would be cut off but if they let her go and they couldn't prove she purposely did bad, she kept her benefits and they would try another place.
There may end up being people like that when it comes to unemployment, but the risk would likely be a ton lower as they were already working and the majority of people I know that have jobs are actually devastated when they lose their job. They WANT to work.
The more I think about it, the more it irks me that people who really don't want to work or who have addictions and such have so much help out there available to them. I was doing a story once on those types of places and asked them why the city had so very many agencies to help them while the economy was tanking and people who had worked all their lives were starting to have to live in their cars and there were no agencies out there to help THEM get food, housing, and free help getting jobs. I was told it was because "they have more obstacles and need more help." Totally wrong imo. They created their obstacles with their choices.
But now I'm going off on another issue. Or not, since the point is that these types of places exist. Why not have them exist for those who are more reliable and less likely to screw things up?
So maybe it really does make it more conceivable to have a person work elsewhere to earn unemployment benefits.
I still am thinking that calling it volunteer work is messed up. It is important for people to understand the difference between doing something for God's glory (or if they're not saved, for no benefits) and for people to retain the idea that we can all pitch in and do something for others without getting something in return. Forcing that issue would be detrimental to how humans should think and act. We need more people to do things for others from the heart and not expect things in return. We're spoiled enough here in the United States!
How about doing what I've seen the welfare department do in some areas? I remember a job I had in Oregon. A lady came in who had applied for welfare benefits. She was physically able to work. She told me they allowed her to receive benefits for either 30 or 90 days, then she had to start working for her benefits. It wasn't charity work. They helped her find places that were hiring and the place I was working at was hiring, so they talked to the boss and I don't know exactly how it worked, but she came in and worked and if I have it right, she didn't get paid from the job, but she still received welfare benefits. I *think* my workplace may have paid a portion of it to the welfare department, then again they may not have. She had x amount of time to prove herself and then the company could decide to hire her or say they didn't want her there anymore.
Wouldn't that be a great system for those on unemployment? They're still working, not losing their pride, and given the opportunity to do work with the prospect of actually getting hired into it.
Now for the girl I'm talking about in particular, it was a nightmare for us. She wanted welfare, not work, and did everything she could to to get fired because if she quit, her benefits would be cut off but if they let her go and they couldn't prove she purposely did bad, she kept her benefits and they would try another place.
There may end up being people like that when it comes to unemployment, but the risk would likely be a ton lower as they were already working and the majority of people I know that have jobs are actually devastated when they lose their job. They WANT to work.
The more I think about it, the more it irks me that people who really don't want to work or who have addictions and such have so much help out there available to them. I was doing a story once on those types of places and asked them why the city had so very many agencies to help them while the economy was tanking and people who had worked all their lives were starting to have to live in their cars and there were no agencies out there to help THEM get food, housing, and free help getting jobs. I was told it was because "they have more obstacles and need more help." Totally wrong imo. They created their obstacles with their choices.
But now I'm going off on another issue. Or not, since the point is that these types of places exist. Why not have them exist for those who are more reliable and less likely to screw things up?