Summations Only

A few points:▪ Anyone forced to work to receive government assistance should at least be doing work that benefits the community. I think it is a great idea to make work available to people who are unemployed. It gives people a chance to gain experience and form social connections with potential future job references. It would be best if this work was community-service focused, but it's okay to have some companies willing to take on and train folk, but most of the benefits of the unpaid work should be going to the communityyou know, the group of people who pay the taxes that actually fund unemployment benefits.▪ The companies that participate in this program should be required to submit records proving that they are not firing paid staff and replacing them with unpaid workers.▪ The unpaid workers should be compensated according to the income they generate for the company; that way the government is not funding the profits of private businesses.OR:The companies that participate should be required to submit a plan for training each unpaid worker they take on that shows they will actually be teaching the worker essential job skillsas opposed to simply having them do something lame that anyone can do without training, such as socking shelves, which doesn't help increase a person's later employability.I think if these three things are followed, then there should be no reason to question the validity of the program.Jon

Huh? They're not completely unpaid.

Am I reading this right? Your solution to unemployment is to simply tell the unemployed go out and get jobs? How familiar are you with minimum wage laws? Such laws represent a 'minimum expense' to a company. On top of this, companies have other minimum expenses associated with the hiring of any employee, and full-time or regular employees may be entitled to certain costly benefits.If the income generated from the work being done doesn't justify these minimum expenses, hiring will not take place. The company will either choose to let the work go undone and pass up the income, or push the work into the eight-hour workday of its already over-tasked regular/full-time employees.

Doing work costs more money.

LOL.

Did you read anything I wrote? Anything at all? First, I didn't say the work was needed.Second, you didn't reply at all to my point that sometimes the extra work doesn't produce an income enough to justify the cost of the labor, which has a minimum cost because of unpreventable things like the cost of hiring, and also because of things like minimum wage.If the work generates an additional income for the company of $3.00/hour, do you think they will hire someone for $7.50/hour to do it? And as far as I can tell, what's being done in England isn't one of them. Not overtasked in the sense of literally incapable of doing further work; overtasked in the sense of already doing more work than they're getting paid foryou know, like everyone who works for a wage does. I've read nothing about urgency. Please point it out to me.Jon

Which I don't advocate. Which is currently not possible.So I ask again:Did you read anything I wrote? Anything at all?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Because I was pretty clear in Message 16 about exactly what I thought. Nowhere did I argue for stealing labor, yet that has been crash's focus in all his replies to me so far. When someone thinks that doing work doesn't cost more money than not doing work, the only reasonable response is to laugh at them.

But we do have a minimum wage, and that means a lot of people willing to work for $5.50/hr are unemployed. Of course there is. The business, for example, may be providing something of value to the unpaid worker, such as job training experience, chances to network with potential job references, etc. You'll notice that that's what I said in Message 16:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 16:

​

The unpaid workers should be compensated according to the income they generate for the company; that way the government is not funding the profits of private businesses.

​

OR:

​

The companies that participate should be required to submit a plan for training each unpaid worker they take on that shows they will actually be teaching the worker essential job skillsas opposed to simply having them do something lame that anyone can do without training, such as socking shelves, which doesn't help increase a person's later employability.

---

Did you read that, Crash? Did you notice me saying that employees should be compensated for their work? I think that is exactly what I said; I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with repeating it. Precisely. Except we live in a society where it is against the law to contract work from someone for less than a certain wage, even when the work you want them to do does not justify that minimum wage. This has the unfortunate side-effect of keeping certain people out of doing work they could otherwise be doing.Jon

Isn't it obvious? Some work generates income greater than the costs of doing that work, other work doesn't; were there enough of the former type of work available, there wouldn't be unemployed people. You and Crash merely enjoy misreading people. If you read my words for what they are instead of what you think they are, then you'd have no problem understanding my most simple points.But you're a troll. I've no more to say to you.Jon

No it's not. We compensate employees in many different ways. Some employees are compensated with college credit and work experience. Some compensation is in healthcare benefits. Sometimes compensation is in the form of living quarters.The notion that compensation must be a $ amount is just thata notion. I don't propose that people actually be uncompensated. And the people involved in the program do appear to be getting compensated. I simply use the phrase 'unpaid work' because it's the one used in the title of the thread. No sensible person actually thinks people should have to work with no compensation whatsoever. Again; people can be compensated without being given money. And I'll tell you again: I'm not proposing that people work for free. In other words, you need to ask your stupid ass question of someone else! I haven't:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 18:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

"Unpaid work." What a load of horseshit.

​

They're not completely unpaid.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 27:

​

We already have two systems where people work for free

​

And as far as I can tell, what's being done in England isn't one of them.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 32:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

If we have minimum wage then we have minimum wage, and it's against the law to hire someone for free, because $0.00 an hour is well below the minimum wage.

​

Which I don't advocate.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 36:

​

I was pretty clear in Message 16 about exactly what I thought. Nowhere did I argue for stealing labor, yet that has been crash's focus in all his replies to me so far.

---

Do you finally see why your question is irrelevant to the stance I have taken? Do you see now that I have never once proposed that people not be compensated for their labor?Will you finally stop asking me how I think not compensating people for their labor solves problems when I've never put such nonsense forward as a solution? Such work doesn't exist you mentally impotent buffoon!That's why the people are unemployed. Not compensating people for their labor solves nothing. This proposal should go over well in the real world. Or wait... you live in the Star-Trek Universe; perhaps things are different there.Jon

But they are paid! They're probably not paid enough for all the work they do, but who the hell is these days?And besides, 'compelling them to work... under threat of homelessness and starvation'? Isn't that why 90% of the population goes to work anyway?As is, the program seems highly corrupt. But the notion that it is unethical even in principle just doesn't seem supportable. Yes. But the work done has to justify that extra wage. Otherwise you might as well just pay people minimum wage for their unemployment benefits (which they should be getting anyway) and not waste the extra money having them do unproductive work.I think in principle this program is a fine idea, so long as the things I said in Message 16 are followed.Jon

Whatever Crash. You're clearly hung up on thinking that I am proposing people go to work without compensation and no amount of me telling you that I don't think they should seems as though it will change your mind.Little does, though; so I'm not surprised.Jon

Indeed. They should be getting something out of the employment itself too aside from simply maintaining eligibility for the unemployment pay. And the unemployment pay should be at least at minimum wage. Like I've said, if the company has to pay them minimum wage, yet the work generates less income than the wage, there will be no hiring. That's the way the situation is now: companies don't have work available at the minimum wage and so no more people are getting hired at the minimum wage; and companies can't hire people at less than the minimum wage, and so no body is getting hired at that wage eitherso no one is getting hired.A better system would be to allow companies to hire people at less than minimum wage and then use unemployment benefits to make up the differencein effect, a minimum income system instead of a minimum wage system. But complete system revolution is, I think, getting a little away from the topic of the thread, which is how to best deal with the system we've got and the program that's been put in place. Sure around here, it is already possible for companies to receive such incentives for hiring people receiving welfare payments. I don't think that's the case. I think a program like this could be very beneficial to everyone involved, so long as some measures are taken to prevent exploitation. Can I ask you this: if the steps in Message 16 where followed, would you be as troubled with the program's existence? If so, what do you particularly find unacceptable about my propositions for improvement? Don't go down Crashfrog lane now and start accusing me of holding positions I don't hold. I have never said that exploitation of the poor is justified, and I certainly don't hold such a position. Again, my Message 16 should make it clear that I do not at all think the current program is acceptable but that I do see it as possible with proper precautions. And this was part of my Message 16, making the service mostly community-based instead of corporation-based. Exactly as I've said. As is, the program stinks. But having unemployed people work for compensation is not entirely unethical in principle (obviously), just in the way it's been put into practice in the program mentioned in the OP. Hopefully in a way that doesn't amount to the government paying company profits. But, yes, this plan seems okay. Though I would argue that it is not necessary to have the company pay the employee minimum wage and then get paid back by the governmentbetter, in my opinion, to simply have the company pay the employee an amount justified by their labor and value to the company, and then have the government make up the difference directly to the employee. Hopefully I've made it clear that I don't find the current program ethical.Jon

100% wrong. Stupidly so.It is justified whenever two parties agree that such an arrangement is suitable between them.There are many jobs I would gladly do in exchange for unpaid work experience.