A new take on unemployment

Hello this is my first post please bear with me,

in america we have a program known as unemployment.

as many of us know during these tough times the program is a way for people without a job to get the support they need in order to support themselves while they find a job. some people can be accused of cheating this system although i am no expert on the matter. what i am here to suggest is that we change the way unemployment works to make it more effective and efficient. the way i propose to do this would be to turn it into a program that can allow for private organizations to submit a petition for a certification for a sort of community service log. To clarify i will give an example.

Say we have subject A whose name is "Billy yank" and he was a steel worker in Pittsburgh however he got laid off due to an economic downturn and is unable to find a job. normally he would go to the unemployment office and apply for the unemployment benefits. what my idea proposes is that instead he goes to an office where he can submit his resume and the people there can search through a database of certified non-profit organisations who could use volunteers in there various operations. through this they can find a good fit for billy yank to help the community while said non-profit organisation can record billy yank's contributions to society and submit them to the unemployment office as certification that billy is not sitting idol and he can then continue to get the benefits he needs.

now i understand that this may seem a little like over complicating the process but think about how large the benefit to the community each and every person who is unemployed would give.

Q: if a person is needing to do volunteer work how will they find the time to get a job or take care of kids.

A: the programs that would be available through this system would have to be checked to ensure that the volunteer workload is not overwhelming and that plenty of time would be given to those who need it

Q: who would run the new unemployment offices

A: the old unemployment people

Q: what happens when someone does not meet the requirements to receive benefits

A: they cannot receive them, if someone is not willing to do volunteer work for benefits then they would not be willing to do a normal job

im exited to hear your oppositions and ideas and i will try to keep activly posting to respond and debate this topic. i would greatly appreciate that if you do talk to someone about this topic that you please remember to give credit to o3smog.

I think it is a great idea. I actually dont think you will find many people who disagree with either workfair or volunteerfair as an alternative to unemployment and welfare.

So go ahead, you have my stamp of approval, change our laws for the better.

i don't agree.

for me, finding a job was a full time job. also, putting every unemployed person into a volunteer position is going to mean a lot less real jobs and a lot more unpaid "volunteer" positions. many paid positions fill needs that could technically be defined as "community service."

want to lower unemployment? hire people to make goods and deliver services. they'll also buy stuff, which will help every community. further diluting the job market with people performing unpaid labor to collect the unemployment insurance that they already earned is a poor plan to turn the economy around.

Helix said:

i don't agree.

for me, finding a job was a full time job. also, putting every unemployed person into a volunteer position is going to mean a lot less real jobs and a lot more unpaid "volunteer" positions. many paid positions fill needs that could technically be defined as "community service."

want to lower unemployment? hire people to make goods and deliver services. they'll also buy stuff, which will help every community. further diluting the job market with people performing unpaid labor to collect the unemployment insurance that they already earned is a poor plan to turn the economy around.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you, except that private sector hring wasn't one of the given options. Our options were between welfare and workfare. Naturally not having any unemployment would be preferable, but thats not exactly the type of decision that can be made by government or by policy as the private sectors is composed of tens of thousands of individual employers all acting totally independantly, but in their own best interests without regard to the interests of others.

Now if you have a practical way to eleminate unemployment though increasing private sector employment, then please speak up and let us know how to implement such.

This is very similar to the original idea for Americorps. The idea there was that we passed the Clinton welfare reform that reduced the number of people getting welfare by 75%, limited it to only parents of young children, and limited the amount of time a person can get it to five years. Americorps was supposed to fill in the gap by providing jobs to all the people we kicked off welfare that would pay about the same as welfare and do various community service type stuff. The problem is that the Republicans in Congress basically doublecrossed Clinton on it. He signed the welfare reform bill cutting welfare, then they slashed funding for Americorps to something like 10% of what it was supposed to be. So, Americorps still exists and still employes a lot of people doing community service type work, but there are far fewer positions than people that want them. Where it was originally intended to be basically a job anybody who was willing to work could get it turned into a fairly competitive job to get because there were so few of them. Since then Republicans have cut Americorps funding twice. In my opinion, the solution is to increase Americorps funding up to the originally planned level.

imagep said:

I would agree with you, except that private sector hring wasn't one of the given options. Our options were between welfare and workfare. Naturally not having any unemployment would be preferable, but thats not exactly the type of decision that can be made by government or by policy as the private sectors is composed of tens of thousands of individual employers all acting totally independantly, but in their own best interests without regard to the interests of others.

Now if you have a practical way to eleminate unemployment though increasing private sector employment, then please speak up and let us know how to implement such.

Click to expand...

i wouldn't exclusively concentrate on the private sector.

i would support a vastly expanded national infrastructure building / repair project coupled with an extensive upgrade of our electrical grid and federally funded domestic energy innovation. part of this would be paid for with a tax increase on the upper marginal rate, and another part would be paid for by reallocating defense spending. a domestic "nation building" project, basically.

on the private side, i would support a two-tiered corporate tax rate that encourages corporations to hire a higher percentage of their workforce / manufacturing domestically. those that choose to outsource large amounts of labor pay the current rate; those that significantly insource pay a rate competitive with the lowest European rates. i would support taking a look at current loopholes to determine which ones should be eliminated, also.

o3smog said:

Hello this is my first post please bear with me,

in america we have a program known as unemployment.

as many of us know during these tough times the program is a way for people without a job to get the support they need in order to support themselves while they find a job. some people can be accused of cheating this system although i am no expert on the matter. what i am here to suggest is that we change the way unemployment works to make it more effective and efficient. the way i propose to do this would be to turn it into a program that can allow for private organizations to submit a petition for a certification for a sort of community service log. To clarify i will give an example.

Say we have subject A whose name is "Billy yank" and he was a steel worker in Pittsburgh however he got laid off due to an economic downturn and is unable to find a job. normally he would go to the unemployment office and apply for the unemployment benefits. what my idea proposes is that instead he goes to an office where he can submit his resume and the people there can search through a database of certified non-profit organisations who could use volunteers in there various operations. through this they can find a good fit for billy yank to help the community while said non-profit organisation can record billy yank's contributions to society and submit them to the unemployment office as certification that billy is not sitting idol and he can then continue to get the benefits he needs.

now i understand that this may seem a little like over complicating the process but think about how large the benefit to the community each and every person who is unemployed would give.

Q: if a person is needing to do volunteer work how will they find the time to get a job or take care of kids.

A: the programs that would be available through this system would have to be checked to ensure that the volunteer workload is not overwhelming and that plenty of time would be given to those who need it

Q: who would run the new unemployment offices

A: the old unemployment people

Q: what happens when someone does not meet the requirements to receive benefits

A: they cannot receive them, if someone is not willing to do volunteer work for benefits then they would not be willing to do a normal job

im exited to hear your oppositions and ideas and i will try to keep activly posting to respond and debate this topic. i would greatly appreciate that if you do talk to someone about this topic that you please remember to give credit to o3smog.

Click to expand...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all Welcome to his forum. I hope you will enjoy all the lively discussions and take part in them.


So your solution to unemployment is in order for people to receive their money (and yes it is their money that was put aside in case they lose their job) was to be subjugated to an indenture servitude for the money that are owed?

And naturally this encampment is run by more unemployed people!! :roll:

Is this regulated by government or a private organization for profit?

What about rural areas?...you can have these encampment in a large cities but what small towns...., are you forcing them to travel hours to these concentration camps for "Volunteer work"? who is going to pay for that?

What about single family...who is taking care of the kids? Or you are advocating to volunteering the children to?

And why do assume this is cheaper than just paying the unemployment. According to Employment Development Department the case of Abuse are less than 3%. why are burning hundred of dollars to save a dollar?

I remember Reagan Speech about this hypothetical women who received multiple social security checks while driving a Mercedes. Later they did search for this woman and they found no evidence of such person ever existed.

We should not randomly make policies based on perceived myth or scapegoats!

Diving Mullah

Welfare recipients should have to do some sort of work but if you are getting unemployment you should be free too look for work. I do however think that there should be more stringent and more enforced rules on looking for and accepting a job but in the real world I don't know how that could be done without having unemployment police, no thanks.

sawyerloggingon said:

Welfare recipients should have to do some sort of work but if you are getting unemployment you should be free too look for work. I do however think that there should be more stringent and more enforced rules on looking for and accepting a job but in the real world I don't know how that could be done without having unemployment police, no thanks.

Click to expand...

That about covers it.

There should never have been unemployment insurance in the first place. It's a terrible idea all the way around and over time teaches people to not worry about saving their money or plan for the possibility of being unemployed someday.

One wrinkle that is hard to know how to handle is that we actually do not necessarily want people unemployed people to accept every job they could get. For example, a computer programmer ends up being more valuable to the economy overall if he takes a year to find another computer programming job than if he accepts a job working at McDonalds immediately because a computer programmer generates several times as much GDP and tax revenue as a McDonalds worker. But, on the flip side, there are probably people who were previously computer programmers that realistically were let go because they were not very good at it and who should be considering a step down. But, it's something to consider. Anything that pushes people too aggressively to find work as fast as possible can actually do more harm than good. Finding work can be a full time endeavor and is difficult to accomplish while you're already working a full time job. Plus, nobody wants to hire somebody for a computer programming job that is currently working at a McDonalds. Illogical or not, there is sort of a stigma associated with taking a step down. Steps down tend to end up being long term even if they were intended to be short term. Anyways, I don't know the solution, but that is part of the complexity of the problem.

teamosil said:

One wrinkle that is hard to know how to handle is that we actually do not necessarily want people unemployed people to accept every job they could get. For example, a computer programmer ends up being more valuable to the economy overall if he takes a year to find another computer programming job than if he accepts a job working at McDonalds immediately because a computer programmer generates several times as much GDP and tax revenue as a McDonalds worker.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. If the computer programmer can't find a computer programming job because they're all occupied by other computer programmers (who are generating all that GDP and tax revenue) and, instead of taking an interim job, the odd man out sits on his ass googling for open computer programmer jobs in his area (that don't exist) while collecting a check, and then a year later one of the other computer programmers moves or dies and his job opens up and he applies and gets it, then you're arguing his time spent on his ass looking for a job that wasn't there is "more valuable to society overall."

Nope.

Anything that pushes people too aggressively to find work as fast as possible can actually do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Just let people decide for themselves what work they should accept and how fast. It's not your business or mine or the federal government's.

Plus, nobody wants to hire somebody for a computer programming job that is currently working at a McDonalds.

Click to expand...

Actually, McDonalds doesn't want to hire computer programmers because they won't work there long enough to be worth the time spent having someone else train them.

o3smog said:

Hello this is my first post please bear with me,

in america we have a program known as unemployment.

as many of us know during these tough times the program is a way for people without a job to get the support they need in order to support themselves while they find a job. some people can be accused of cheating this system although i am no expert on the matter. what i am here to suggest is that we change the way unemployment works to make it more effective and efficient. the way i propose to do this would be to turn it into a program that can allow for private organizations to submit a petition for a certification for a sort of community service log. To clarify i will give an example.

Say we have subject A whose name is "Billy yank" and he was a steel worker in Pittsburgh however he got laid off due to an economic downturn and is unable to find a job. normally he would go to the unemployment office and apply for the unemployment benefits. what my idea proposes is that instead he goes to an office where he can submit his resume and the people there can search through a database of certified non-profit organisations who could use volunteers in there various operations. through this they can find a good fit for billy yank to help the community while said non-profit organisation can record billy yank's contributions to society and submit them to the unemployment office as certification that billy is not sitting idol and he can then continue to get the benefits he needs.

now i understand that this may seem a little like over complicating the process but think about how large the benefit to the community each and every person who is unemployed would give.

Q: if a person is needing to do volunteer work how will they find the time to get a job or take care of kids.

A: the programs that would be available through this system would have to be checked to ensure that the volunteer workload is not overwhelming and that plenty of time would be given to those who need it

Q: who would run the new unemployment offices

A: the old unemployment people

Q: what happens when someone does not meet the requirements to receive benefits

A: they cannot receive them, if someone is not willing to do volunteer work for benefits then they would not be willing to do a normal job

im exited to hear your oppositions and ideas and i will try to keep activly posting to respond and debate this topic. i would greatly appreciate that if you do talk to someone about this topic that you please remember to give credit to o3smog.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous.


That would be like "billy yank" buying car insurance, then after a tree falls on his car the car insurance company says they will only pay to fix his car if he performs slave labor.

Muhammed said:

That's ridiculous.


That would be like "billy yank" buying car insurance, then after a tree falls on his car the car insurance company says they will only pay to fix his car if he performs slave labor.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. The insurance example you provide is a contract. It would therefore not be "slave labor," even if it was written in to an insurance sales agreement/contract. The work would be in exchange for the payment to fix his car, and the policyholder agreed to that when he bought the insurance.

On that note, receipt of welfare in exchange for some light volunteer work turns welfare into de facto federal temp work.

Neomalthusian said:

Utter nonsense. If the computer programmer can't find a computer programming job because they're all occupied by other computer programmers (who are generating all that GDP and tax revenue) and, instead of taking an interim job, the odd man out sits on his ass googling for open computer programmer jobs in his area (that don't exist) while collecting a check, and then a year later one of the other computer programmers moves or dies and his job opens up and he applies and gets it, then you're arguing his time spent on his ass looking for a job that wasn't there is "more valuable to society overall."

Click to expand...

Say that he gets the computer programming job in 9 months if he job hunts full time or 12 months if he does it while working at McDonalds. Which scenario means more GDP being created?

Neomalthusian said:

Just let people decide for themselves what work they should accept and how fast. It's not your business or mine or the federal government's.

Click to expand...

Right. That's what I'm saying- policies designed to force people to take the McDonald's job they don't want to take = bad.

teamosil said:

Say that he gets the computer programming job in 9 months if he job hunts full time or 12 months if he does it while working at McDonalds. Which scenario means more GDP being created?

Click to expand...

Depends entirely on whether there was a vacant computer programmer job open somewhere that whole time that the job-seeker never found. If all the programmer jobs that the economy needed were basically full over that time, then it's not a GDP issue.

The defense of unemployment welfare using this idea that the economy needs our talented people to be doing nothing but job searching goes nowhere. Don't listen to the likes of Pelosi and her bat**** crazy theories that it's somehow a net positive when we pay people public funds to be full-time job searchers.

Right. That's what I'm saying- policies designed to force people to take the McDonald's job they don't want to take = bad.

Click to expand...

Yes, you will never see me supporting a policy of forced employment or mandatory volunteerism. Don't force them to work, and don't force workers to pay for non-workers to job search. Fair all the way around.

Neomalthusian said:

Depends entirely on whether there was a vacant computer programmer job open somewhere that whole time that the job-seeker never found. If all the programmer jobs that the economy needed were basically full over that time, then it's not a GDP issue.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it assumes that the programmer job would not have been filled for those last 3 months. Or, that if it were, whoever took it would be taking it instead of another programming job, and then that job would not have been filled.

Having people in the jobs where they create the most value is very important to our economy. The extra cost of taking a couple extra months to look for the job where you will be best utilized is well worth it.

Neomalthusian said:

The defense of unemployment welfare using this idea that the economy needs our talented people to be doing nothing but job searching goes nowhere. Don't listen to the likes of Pelosi and her bat**** crazy theories that it's somehow a net positive when we pay people public funds to be full-time job searchers.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a counter argument against the position I'm taking, so just blurting out that you think it is crazy doesn't impress me.

I like the concept but maybe not to the extreme that the OP suggests. Maybe some volunteer work, better checks and balances so people don't abuse the program.

People need time though emotionally to regroup, pick up the pieces as losing your job can be devastating and you wouldn't want to create a system that is too extreme for people as they may need time to learn new skills, a new trade, or have to relocate. So many life changing things that come with unemployment...

I'm a fan of mandatory drug-testing for unemployment claimants, and required reporting to employment agencies for claimants.

If you are actually looking for a job, you should have to report to an employment agency (either state run or private) at least once a day between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm, Monday through Friday, to check the employment postings with a job counselor. Based on what you were making over the last few years, if you decide to take a low wage job, you should still be entitled to a portion of benefits. For example, if you were a car salesman who made $50,000 a year for the past three years, you'd be entitled to something like $400 a week in benefits, but if you took a minimum wage job at McDonalds, you'd still get, say, half of that $400 a week on top of what you made at McDonalds. Maximum of 25 weeks.

If you can't get your stuff together in that amount of time, or reduce your expenses to a lower-income lifestyle, then Darwin has a very special award to give you.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I'm a fan of mandatory drug-testing for unemployment claimants, and required reporting to employment agencies for claimants.

If you are actually looking for a job, you should have to report to an employment agency (either state run or private) at least once a day between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm, Monday through Friday, to check the employment postings with a job counselor. Based on what you were making over the last few years, if you decide to take a low wage job, you should still be entitled to a portion of benefits. For example, if you were a car salesman who made $50,000 a year for the past three years, you'd be entitled to something like $400 a week in benefits, but if you took a minimum wage job at McDonalds, you'd still get, say, half of that $400 a week on top of what you made at McDonalds. Maximum of 25 weeks.

If you can't get your stuff together in that amount of time, or reduce your expenses to a lower-income lifestyle, then Darwin has a very special award to give you.

Click to expand...

All the patronizing and paternalism towards people who are looking for work is uncalled for. The economy took a downturn. These folks aren't the ones that caused that. No need to insult them or treat them like children or drug addicts or whatever nonsense.

teamosil said:

All the patronizing and paternalism towards people who are looking for work is uncalled for. The economy took a downturn. These folks aren't the ones that caused that. No need to insult them or treat them like children or drug addicts or whatever nonsense.

Click to expand...

Whatever "caused" it is irrelevant. If you were, for whatever reason, judged expendable by your former employer, then you should, by rights, be encouraged to seek new means, and learn to live within them. What if we had a truly horrible downturn, like 25-30% unemployment? If our economy was so badly damaged that even a 100% tax rate couldn't fund the government and all entitlement programs, what do you suggest we do? Any way you look at it, adjustments MUST be made, and a great number of people will have to learn how to get by with less. It's just a hard fact of life.

I don't think it's insulting at all to require people to show up to receive benefits. I mean, it should not be treated as "free money." If showing up to an office an hour a day, five days a week, to sit down with a professional to help you find a job is considered "too much of a burden"... what on earth would a full-time, 40-hour/wk job represent? If you can't be assed to put in a hour a day into finding a job... with professional counseling services... who in the world would want your sorry ass working for them? What is the harm in *requiring* people to put forth an effort to receive a benefit?

On drug testing, good luck finding a decent job where they don't drug test! Hell, every single government job that I know of (former ten year federal government employee, and soon to be municipal government employee next week) performs a pre-work drug screen. Are you telling me it's a bad idea to *ensure* people are prepared for a necessary step in the employment process? And if you consider your 5 hr/wk employment program as "your job" while receiving compensation in benefits, why shouldn't you drug test? You'd be working for the government, after all!

Why should unemployment benefits be "no strings attached"? What is the purpose behind that? You see, under my program, people would not only be more employable, but they would receive professional help in career location. I've even included a provision to ease the transition from high wage to low wage, encouraging the desire to work in the process. Based on past pay, if you take a minimum- or low-wage job, you could still receive benefits to shore up the difference in pay while you adjust your lifestyle. Sure, it would make it harder to soak the system, but why is that necessarily patronizing and insulting? If you're getting money, earn it. Five hours a week is hardly uncalled for.

Let me be clear, I'm not advocating that someone *must* take a lower wage job. Not at all. If you do take one, and it's lower than you are accustomed to, you could still receive benefits and be better off than you were just claiming benefits alone. If you wanted to hold out for a better job, and subsist on benefits alone, well that would be your choice. But I see no downside to incentivizing people to work a crappy job while they search for a better one. At least they'll be working, and be financially better off than claiming benies alone.

Did you know that 85% of hiring businesses use existing employment agencies, both state-run and private, to find prospective employees? Only the remaining 15% of companies hire from "classifieds," those including your local newspaper and employment search engines like Monster.com and craigslist. Just imagine if people were actually required to look for a job, how many more businesses would rely on these agencies!

I'm really seeing no downside to my plan, whatsoever.

Diving Mullah said:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all Welcome to his forum. I hope you will enjoy all the lively discussions and take part in them.


So your solution to unemployment is in order for people to receive their money (and yes it is their money that was put aside in case they lose their job) was to be subjugated to an indenture servitude for the money that are owed?

And naturally this encampment is run by more unemployed people!! :roll:

Is this regulated by government or a private organization for profit?

What about rural areas?...you can have these encampment in a large cities but what small towns...., are you forcing them to travel hours to these concentration camps for "Volunteer work"? who is going to pay for that?

What about single family...who is taking care of the kids? Or you are advocating to volunteering the children to?

And why do assume this is cheaper than just paying the unemployment. According to Employment Development Department the case of Abuse are less than 3%. why are burning hundred of dollars to save a dollar?

I remember Reagan Speech about this hypothetical women who received multiple social security checks while driving a Mercedes. Later they did search for this woman and they found no evidence of such person ever existed.

We should not randomly make policies based on perceived myth or scapegoats!

Diving Mullah

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from however I think you misunderstood where I was going.

I do not meen for the government to try and save a buck in this plan nor was I trying to turn the economy. (If I was trying to do that I would fix corp. Tax loopholes and such) instead I was trying to provide a way for the unemployed to continue to contribute to society while out of work. The government needs not to spend money on this program because I was imagining that already existing non profit programs would submit an application to this system. I also think that if this were run at the state level the more rural areas could be accounted for more easily.

Awesome! said:

I like the concept but maybe not to the extreme that the OP suggests. Maybe some volunteer work, better checks and balances so people don't abuse the program.

People need time though emotionally to regroup, pick up the pieces as losing your job can be devastating and you wouldn't want to create a system that is too extreme for people as they may need time to learn new skills, a new trade, or have to relocate. So many life changing things that come with unemployment...

Click to expand...

I understand that exactly and I agree with you I believe that the program should be a smooth transition however I think that it should be there none the less

o3smog said:

I see where you are coming from however I think you misunderstood where I was going.

I do not meen for the government to try and save a buck in this plan nor was I trying to turn the economy. (If I was trying to do that I would fix corp. Tax loopholes and such) instead I was trying to provide a way for the unemployed to continue to contribute to society while out of work. The government needs not to spend money on this program because I was imagining that already existing non profit programs would submit an application to this system. I also think that if this were run at the state level the more rural areas could be accounted for more easily.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would have to be run at the State level because it's the State that collects the unemployment insurance monies.

Existing non-profit organizations would already be staffed. They would have to be looking to expand considerably to take on the large number of unemployed in each State. Community service programs are currently helped by non-violent offenders. It's a very popular punishment these days.

Why not just allow for-profit companies to lay off their payed workers to use the unemployed instead?




Oh!, wait...

teamosil said:

No it doesn't, it assumes that the programmer job would not have been filled for those last 3 months. Or, that if it were, whoever took it would be taking it instead of another programming job, and then that job would not have been filled.

Click to expand...

Whatever the case, your position assumes that, despite how competitive the labor market is, jobs would go vacant if people took other jobs and didn't spend all their time searching. This is a silly assumption. More likely is that the people simply outnumber the jobs.

Having people in the jobs where they create the most value is very important to our economy. The extra cost of taking a couple extra months to look for the job where you will be best utilized is well worth it.

Click to expand...

There is no reason people that are of high value to the economy couldn't have saved enough to have a couple months' buffer.

Unemployment is not a GDP-maximizing strategy. It's just welfare.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I don't think it's insulting at all to require people to show up to receive benefits. I mean, it should not be treated as "free money." If showing up to an office an hour a day, five days a week, to sit down with a professional to help you find a job is considered "too much of a burden"... what on earth would a full-time, 40-hour/wk job represent? If you can't be assed to put in a hour a day into finding a job... with professional counseling services... who in the world would want your sorry ass working for them? What is the harm in *requiring* people to put forth an effort to receive a benefit?

Click to expand...

Have you ever been to an employment office? It's a totally useless process. I was unemployed for a while. My previous job had been director of a department in a software company. You think it would have been a good use of my time going through the list of 50 manual labor jobs the employment office has on file with the other 50,000 people that wanted a job? That would have been a ridiculous waste of time and a major impediment to finding a job. You don't really have hours a day to just waste on useless red tape like that when you're looking for a job, you need to be actually looking for a real job.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

On drug testing, good luck finding a decent job where they don't drug test! Hell, every single government job that I know of (former ten year federal government employee, and soon to be municipal government employee next week) performs a pre-work drug screen. Are you telling me it's a bad idea to *ensure* people are prepared for a necessary step in the employment process? And if you consider your 5 hr/wk employment program as "your job" while receiving compensation in benefits, why shouldn't you drug test? You'd be working for the government, after all!

Click to expand...

Of course it is insulting to drug test people. You are implying that you assume they're drug addicts that need government intervention to get their life straight or something... When the economy hit it's worst point at the very end of Bush2 I would say that about 40% of my friends in San Francisco were out of work. They were not out of work because they were using drugs or whatever, they were out of work because the companies they worked for folded or because they ended entire product lines that they worked on or whatever. Virtually all of them made over $100k/year, most of them had very challenging jobs and skills that when the economy is doing ok are in high demand. Database administrators, developers, software architects, senior management, etc. There just were not any of those jobs for about 6 months there. No matter how good you were, no matter how many jobs you applied to, 99% of the people that got laid off at that time were just going to be out of work for 6 months or so. Then when the market stopped panicking companies lifted their hiring freezes and whatnot and pretty much all of them found jobs quickly.

I think you just have some ridiculous idea of what kind of people are unemployed or something. You say you've spent a lot of time working for the government. Maybe that is why. Many industries, particularly the most profitable ones, are much more volatile than that. It isn't only druggies and lazy people that get laid off, anybody can get laid off. It's just part of life.

The claim that every single government job drug tests is false. It is unconstitutional for the government to drug test outside of positions where there is a uniquely strong reason to test. Generally that means medical jobs where somebody might have access to pharmaceuticals or prescriptions, law enforcement jobs where the employees might have access to street drugs, or jobs like pilot where the danger of innebriation is radically higher. Most government jobs don't fall in any of those categories and courts have frequently prohibited the government from instituting drug tests in other kinds of positions.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Did you know that 85% of hiring businesses use existing employment agencies, both state-run and private, to find prospective employees? Only the remaining 15% of companies hire from "classifieds," those including your local newspaper and employment search engines like Monster.com and craigslist. Just imagine if people were actually required to look for a job, how many more businesses would rely on these agencies!

Click to expand...

That's true that most companies use recruiters, but what recruiters do, mostly, is post ads or search profiles on sites like monster. It's kind of a scam profession. They usually do have relationships with a number of people in the field that are looking for jobs. When I was unemployed I worked with a handful of recruiters, but ultimately I had a lot more luck getting recommendations from people I know that work at companies I wanted to work for.