Tier 5 unemployment extension outlook grim

1. I said "assuming."

2. Any job will pay more than entry-level retail, so ALL their employees will bolt for a better job at the first chance. Turnover at these places is off-the-charts high for a reason. EVERYBODY (or almost everybody) wants something better and will leave the second they get it. You think every ticket-taker at Disney is not qualified for more skilled work?

The last time there were major layoffs looming at my shop, I had two calls requesting an interview. Wal-Mart and Target. Both came just a couple of days after I found out I wasn't among the terminated, so I don't know if I would have been hired. But they called for an interview, which pretty much puts to rest the myth that compensation in our previous jobs will automatically exclude us from consideration. My $35/hour salary didn't seem to put them off.

 

Indeed. And to nip a political discussion in the bud, all I'll say is, you ain't seen nothing yet, from me and a lot of people.

 

Seen nothing yet about what?

 

figure it out

 

lol

Tough Guy

If you are making a threat, make a threat. The only thing I can read into it is that the permanently unemployed are going to riot if their money runs out, but it couldn't possibly be that stupid, can it?

 

That's the biggest problem many people are facing right now.

If you have a degree in journalism and you're trying to get a job where most people don't have a degree, they usually won't hire you. Either the manager would be threatened to have someone with a degree working for them or they're too worried about someone bolting after just a few months.

I know someone who took his college information off his resume and then found a job quickly.

It's insane, but it's true.

 

ahhhhhh, so ONE side is permitted to scream and screech and wave guns at TV cameras and threaten to overthrow the government, but if the OTHER side started to scream ... well, "it couldn't possibly be that stupid."

A lot of people are saying we need to cut out unemployment and "welfare" altogether. Maybe we should. See what happens.

And that's enough on politics. I'm out.

 

I don't know who "one side" is, but it certainly isn't me.

Rioting over losing your freebies is certainly a novel approach. I'm up for seeing a revolution. Go for it, tough guy.

 

There are 310 million people in the country.

"A lot" can and do say, well, just about anything.

Doesn't mean there is or will be one millimeter of movement toward what they say, however.

 

It works in Europe.

 

It wasn't my intent to start an online food fight. I think the more interesting point of the articles I originally posted is that coverage of unemployment benefits has been spotty and riddled with mistakes, and that a blogger has set out to fill the void. The extension passed earlier this month was an extension for deadlines, not for benefits. Whatever our feelings are (is 99 weeks enough? too much?) shouldn't be the driving factor of how the story is covered. Since at least 10 percent of newspaper readers are affected by this, you'd think it would generate more in depth coverage. And since layoffs are a pressing concern for every working reporter, you'd think they'd have more interest in the subject.

 

Is 99 weeks too much? It sure seems like it. But most of us have never experienced anything like this depression and I know tons of people who have been out of work for more than a year and these are people who nobody would ever accuse of being lazy.

We're also about to see the unemployment numbers skyrocket again as soon as all of the census workers are let go, which should happen in June. I find it offensive that the government counted "seasonal" workers who don't get any benefits against the unemployment numbers to give people the false sense that things are getting better.