Unemployed may have to work for benefit check.

Originally posted by Scalded Frog
First, I have no idea if this is really the right forum but, from my point of view this doesn't belong in US Political Madness and not sure if it's really breaking news.

The Metropolitan Tranportation Authority wants to revive its participation in the city's Work Experience Program - which makes the unemployed toil for their benefit checks.

www.nydailynews.com...

I've contemplated such a partial solution myself before and wonder what other people think.

I think it should cover a broader spectrum... making unemployed admin people work one day a week at the unemployment office or making a construction worker do some type of maintenance one day a week... It would get some government work done with no additional cost.

I think it would flush some of those that are just out there on the dole. For those that are legitimately unemployed, it would give them one day a week of feeling contributively productive and might give them the opportunity to learn new skills for their job search.

I notice in the opening paragraph of the article it references those receiving welfare. Not the same thing but the same rules could certainly apply. You'd have to have some of those doing day care work one day a week to make it work though.

edit on 29-3-2011 by Scalded Frog because: ETA: The reason I only suggest one day a week is so that person is still available to look for work the other 4.

I live in The Netherlands and we already have such a thing/law here, if you want welfare and you are under the age of 27 you have to do some work for it. Some are small and easy jobs of the municipality, to some construction work

reply to post by notimportant


In the US unemployment isn't a form of welfare. It's a form of insurance. Unemployment insurance is paid into by your employer just like they pay into your health insurance. The only difference is the employer isn't forced to pay into health insurance for you. They can if they want, and many employers do, but they're not forced to.

Unemployment insurance is different. That the employer IS forced to pay into for the employee in case the employee is laid off or the company is shut down.

It's part of your wages and benefits. It's money that could be going to your paycheck, but the employer is forced to pay it into a government ran insurance policy for you instead.

Then when you're laid off they decide if you qualify to collect benefits from that insurance policy. In other words they decide if the reason you're unemployment is covered by the insurance policy. Sort of like when you get sick they determine if your health insurance covers your treatment or not.

Making people work for it, would no different than if you had health insurance, but when you got sick the insurance company said no, we're not covering you unless you work one day a week! That doesn't make any sense. You've ALREADY paid for the insurance policy before hand.

But the government mismanaged the money and the economy forcing lots of people to file all their claims at once. Too many for them to cover. So, now they don't have enough money to pay out all the claims at the same time.

So they're trying to tell people, YOU SHOULDN'T GET THIS FREE! But nobody was ever getting it for free. Everyone has already worked for it. It was never free. If you don't work, you can't collect it. You have to work for a certain amount of time before you're able to collect it. And you can only collect it in certain situations. Like if the company shuts down. You can't just quit or get fired and collect on it. It only covers certain things like all insurance policies.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have to work for it. I'm just saying that in the US by the time you go to collect unemployment you already HAVE worked for it and paid for it. You shouldn't have to do it twice is what I'm saying.

EDIT: I notice in the article they refer to those people as people on unemployment benefits and as people collecting welfare.

People collecting welfare are different. There is a difference between people collecting unemployment benefits and people collecting welfare. But the article doesn't point that out. It labels them both as the same. They're two very different things here. They should NOT be referring to welfare benefits as unemployment benefits or unemployment benefits as welfare benefits. They are VERY different things.

Article is written very badly.

This could and should be done. In the case of the unemployed they could work perhaps 3-4 hours a day and still have plenty of time to schedule meetings and interviews. When would they do research or write resumes you ask - at night on their time like the rest of the world.

Besides making these interviews count toward time spent would be an incentive to actually schedule them rather than sit at home and call in the pin code every week to reap the benefits.

Just an odd thought here. If you are working and receive a check, then are you technically considered employed although it is both underemployment and the pay comes from the unemployment office?

Sounds like a creative way to "lower" the number of currently unemployed to look good on the nightly news reports to me.

Sort of the same way that the once "lowered" the number of poor by changing the poverty level. It was still the same number of people not making enough money but they were no longer officially in poverty. And therefore no longer "poor".

The election cycle is going to be coming around soon enough and the politicians have to prove that the accomplished something before they themselves are unemployed by the voting booth.

Sooooo, are they saying they have jobs available, or just trying to recoup perceived losses.
I say perceived, because unemployment insurance is just that.

It is payed into by working people to be used in the event of loss of employment, and it is mandatory.

If you have no choice as to whether you pay into the fund, I don't see how they can make you volunteer to get the "benefit" of having insurance.

Originally posted by earthart
reply to post by Scalded Frog

 

I think its an awesome idea, but more than one day a week. More like two and a half to three days a week. I also think any welfare or benefit recipients should pass a mandatory drug test.We would find out alot more of where our money goes and it would force more people to sober/dry up.

Horrible idea, you must have never been unemployed.

When unemployed you search for jobs every day. Finding a job, becomes your job. Limiting the time you are allowed to look for a job, limits your chances of actually finding one, hence -- keeping people on unemployment longer.

One day is acceptable.... maybe. This still totally depends on how they hand out the jobs they need done, and if they are indeed issuing them to the proper people.

I.E.

Someone who doesn't work outside, and has never worked outside (this is a big issue for places like Florida or Arizona where temps get over 100º) should not be working outside. It's not only dangerous, but inefficient.

Telling people what to do for work is communism -- by the way.

reply to Ahabstar

This already happens... Those who currently don't receive an unemployment check and are currently still unemployed, are NOT factored into the "unemployment" rate.

I.E.

They are only reporting a small percentage of the problem. I'm unemployed and can't even get unemployment. They first reviewed me, and passed me... sent me 3 checks, I never did cash the third one... luckily. Got a letter in the mail saying my unemployment was terminated and that I was required to pay back all the money that I received whilst on unemployment.

So, they approved me the money... gave it to me, let me spend it... then said "Oooops, we need that money back, and you won't receive anymore benefits."

The reason they cited, was that I was not currently "unemployed." It was never explained to me how they made this determination, as I wasn't even doing side jobs at the time... I was dead ass broke 0 income besides the UE checks.

It's all a giant scam to keep poor people poor IMO.

Unemployment checks are one thing.

Welfare checks are another.

I'd put tighter requirements on who would receive welfare, would reward busineses (tax incentives) who hire welfare recipients, and spur growth that way.

Anything else is just treating the symptoms and not the cause.

Well said.....Im with you. Here's something to think about, too. It sorta goes along the same lines...What about a work program to off set taxes...A program that will allow you to donate your time, be it, construction, repairs, painting, whatever. So that you may get a reduction in your taxes. Example: A person who has NO children, pays more than someone with 9 kids. Text

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
Yeah. You see this a lot. People who are already the beneficiaries of a rigged system love to see other people who are less fortunate out there "paying their way." By God, I've paid my way. I've worked since I was f---ing 10 years old; I've paid my dues and someone else's and someone else's.

Being unemployed is hard; it's nasty, demoralizing, frustrating, brain-numbing labor. But even if it were a gay-cruise vacation, it's already paid for and doesn't belong to just any bastard who wants to come along and exploit it for cheap labor.

Seriously, you leeches--kiss my butt!

A big problem with this is that it will be in the interest of certain groups to create unemployment in order to create cheap labour. There are people that will certainly take advantage of it.

I'm a firm believer in human rights also, such as basic food, water, clothing and shelter. If a third party has created a system where you need money for these, that third party should supply the money for these with no strings attatched.

If people choose to spend that money on luxuries (such as drugs), then they are choosing to forfeit some (or all) of these rights. So I don't think they should be drug tested for their benefits unless they are responsible for supplying others (such as children) with their basic rights.

If you want luxuries such as big TVs or lobster for dinner, then you should work and support the system that provides these.

If you are quite happy only having the basics, then nobody should have the right to force you to work for their benefit. That is simply modern slavery.

You do realize that people pay into unemployment insurance correct? For many people it is a mathematical impossibility for them to ever recoup the money they've paid into it over the course of their lifetime, so these aren't people leaching off the system. This isn't welfare we're talking about. Then they have the balls to tell you that the money you've paid into the system you can't just get back & you have to work for it again... then here's the kicker. YOU GET TAXED ON IT AGAIN!!! So essentially they want you to work twice and get taxed twice for your unemployment check? Keep in mind this is money you've already earned?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!

Simple Fix, Everyone gets individual unemployment & social security accounts and only get what they pay into it. (This will never happen because then they couldn't steal from you as easy)

As far as Welfare, It would last 12 months max and you would have to get drug tested, if you fail a drug test you now owe the money that you've been given, once you find gainful employment the money that you were given would get deducted out of your income weekly like unemployment insurance until it is paid off.

Unfortunately those Ideas make too much sense so you'll never see them happen. This isn't a conservative or liberal Idea, It's just common sense.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Good point and yes, it doesn't make sense to pay back into the system TWICE.

Unemployment is indeed insurance and not a form of welfare.

Only the stupid and ignorant tend to think otherwise.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


I agree with you.
Am currently unemployed and looking. We had a company wide lay off a few months. ago My manager has just found a job in Cali, he says NY is bull#, meaning you work your a$$ off just to be in NY. There is a clear class separation here, and I have been in both. You have the rich that pay the (illegals) to cook, clean, drive... My point is there are jobs as long as you are willing to move, which at my last straw am considering. I am not an illegal and was born here, but see many many taking advantage of the system, claiming dependencies on tax returns, working for cash... the list goes on and on. It is hard to make close to poverty and stay honest and willing when there are so many taking advantage.

I am taking what I paid back. They do not deserve the little money that I did pay.

I do remain hopeful, perhaps there is a dream 60K job in florida I can get.. who knows. Hopefully I will find something, I apologize to all of you that disagree with my opinion or think I am a leech. I am probably doing more then you cubicle heads just teaching myself new skills while I look for new jobs.