It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
Originally posted by David_Reale
Then they make this kind of, "Tough but fair" bull# decisions.
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
Originally posted by calstorm
I am not against it being legalized either, but there are some jobs out there that some people are morally opposed to doing. People shouldn't be forced to take a job they are in moral disagreement with or face losing benefits, no matter what the job is.
Yet it happens all the time. Should a vegan be forced to work at Mc Donald's or a slaughter house or lose their unemployment benefits? I don't think so. My example however is not even on the same scale as this, because this is about much more than a violation of someones beliefs it is a violation of someones body as well.
My point is people should be able to turn down a job in which they morally disapprove of with out fear of losing their unemployment benefits. Of course there needs to be reasonable clarification on what types of jobs could be found morally offensive to some and to whom. No one should be able to claim a morale objection just because they they don't like the job. There of course should be a good and understandable reason for it.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by David_Reale
Hmmm this is from 2005, how did two people randomly find it at the same time roughly? (The last day or so)?
And then both posted it as a thread?
Is the telegraph.co.uk linking people to this older article?
What's going on here?
And were there any resolutions to this or is it still hanging in the air?