Paul Ryan SUPPORTS program that lets jobless work for free! Take THAT, Ryan bashers! USA! USA! USA!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Georgia Works: Obama Plan To Let Jobless Work For Free Gets Key Backing From Paul Ryan



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/18/georgia-works-obama-plan-jobs-paul-ryan_n_968439.html

WASHINGTON -- While major parts of President Barack Obama's jobs plan are being met with hostility on Capitol Hill, at least one element was welcomed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, on Sunday. That's the president's plan to allow businesses to hire the long-term unemployed for a limited period of time for free.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Ryan raised the plan, modeled after a state program called Georgia Works, in response to a question about aid to states to prevent layoffs of first responders, teachers and other public employees. "We just don't think we should be bailing out state governments," he said. "That's the constitutional responsibility of state governments, not federal governments."

But, he added, he may end up supporting Obama's proposal to expand Georgia Works.

"The Georgia plan sounds pretty interesting, and that's unemployment reform," said Ryan. Much like welfare reform required recipients to show up at job centers or perform other tasks in exchange for aid, "unemployment reform" would require labor for aid.

[DJ13]

1. Our poor businesses NEED slave labor if they're to compete with China

:sarcasm:

[SoapBox]

3. Yup!

...Chris "Tweety" Matthews, had that idiot Jim Cramer on Friday (I think).

I WAS surprised that Tweety (topic was bringing jobs back to America) stopped Cramer in mid "spew", by bringing up the fact that all these manufacturing companies are in China and other such places, so they can produce pants, Khaki's like Cramer was WEARING, for 25 cents a pair. Cramer just came to a stop! He had nothing that he could yap back with, about how we get manufacturing back into America AND how Americans can get a living wage from such jobs.

[Turbineguy]

2. That's what the GOP likes

about multi-level marketing. People at the bottom of the heap working for free. Sure they give up after a while, but there are always other dreamers to take their place.

[malaise]

4. So he supports slavery

Let's enslave the scumbag ReTHUG

[Zambero]

5. Hey, and here's the best part

Those providing the free labor can rest assured that their zero paychecks will be TAX FREE! Republicans will continue to do everything in their power to scuttle jobless benefits, but at least they'll see to it that the affected folks are safely situated in a very low tax bracket. Whooopppeeee, now then, GET BACK TO WORK!!!

:spank:

[Honeycombe8]

6. Well, they're not strictly working for free. They're in a training program,

learning a new occupation. So they're working for free AND receiving free training. This sounds okay, for some...since they're long term unemployed AND if they can afford to work for free (someone w a spouse to pay the bills, for example).

Germany has an apprenticeship program.

I don't know if this will help the unemployment numbers much. But it would be extremely meaningful to those who ultimately got employment this way.

[Angry Dragon]

8. Especially with all the jobs out there

or if they are near retirement age, should be easy to find a job that wants to hire an old person

[Honeycombe8]

11. This is not the type of program helpful to older people. But for someone in his 30s or 40s...

who can afford to work for free while receiving unemployment or who has a spouse to lean on, and finds himself ill equipped to compete for the jobs available because of his experience or training, this could be a good thing. I'm hard pressed to begrudge any program that some would find helpful.

A certain percentage of those in the apprenticeship program will end up being hired by the company that trains them. Probably not many, but some.

Example: You're a woman about age 38 who has been working as a cashier for years, but finds herself unemployed for a long time. Retailers, who use cashiers, have been hard hit, and a lot have closed. She gets on in the apprenticeship program, in exchange for long term unemployment benefits, to learn how to do basic clerical clerk office work (basic computer skills, typing, etc.). This program might help such a person. Maybe it won't. But maybe she would view it as an opportunity. At least she will be learning a second occupation, which will help her in the long run.

[Angry Dragon]

21. Would you have any information on the numbers of

long term unemployed that are over 55??

It seems that the older unemployed are being just swept under the rug and forgotten

[Honeycombe8]

31. No, I don't. I agree. I think long term unemployed 55 and older are permanently

unemployed, in most cases. I can't imagine the horror. If a person doesn't have a 401K or an employed spouse, what would a 55 long term unemployed worker do? No one is going to hire him/her, probably. My heart aches for these people. No one is talking about them.

[Angry Dragon]

52. And that would be me

[Shandris]

12. Perhaps your experience is vastly different from mine...

...but the amount of 'training' I've -ever- received at -any- occupation, -ever-, has been about 4 hours worth. The rest was a repetition of what was learned in that 4 hours, and lots of hours of experience figuring out what parts they lied about. Which is great -- IF you're going to work there, and utterly useless if you're not.

Perhaps training is a good step, but it needs to be training they're actually going to use and unless I've overlooked something, that isn't a part of this equation.

[readmoreoften]

18. Exactly. This is unmitigated profit for corporations. Next step: get rid of paid workers

in favor of "interns" and "unpaid trainees". They've been doing it in white collar jobs for decades. Why not just institute it across the board?

[Honeycombe8]

24. If it's not helpful, then unemployed people won't sign up for it, right?

Let's let them decide. They're the ones who stand to benefit, not you or me.

[Shandris]

64. That's not an answer, Honeycombe.

I think everyone should make certain that proper safeguards are in place; the time to start worrying about whether or not it's just taking advantage of those who need hope most (and thus are most likely to be 'suckered in' to false hope) is before they've been taken advantage of, not after.

When Republicans give this same answer to 'Let us opt out of Social Security', everyone knows its' a canard. Now, I'm not in any way implying that that was your intent, but I think it bears noting that (at least to me) the logic seems to flow the same direction. If it really IS good for the UE, then I'm ALL for it, 100%, no questions asked. But I'm awfully leery of anything that costs people money to do and makes ZERO promises as to what use that money actually has. The last time I tried that, it was for stuffing envelopes and I was 19.

[Honeycombe8]

23. Yes, it's an apprenticeship program. That particular article doesn't make

that clear.

The company is hiring from a pool that is least likely to get hired: the long term unemployed. The company will TRAIN the workers. It's for a certain length of time, at the end of which the company can then hire the worker, or not. (Another part of O's plan is a tax credit IF a company hires a long term unemployed person.) But then the worker has hopefully learned a second occupation well enough, so that his/her pool of possible jobs has opened up.

What's not clear to me is if the worker is receiving extended unemployment benefits in exchange. Otherwise, not many people would be able to afford to work for free, since it actually costs money to work (travel expenses, car repairs, possible new shoes and clothes).

This way, a company actually gets to "try on" a worker before making the hire, training them for specific jobs, and gets a tax credit, hopefully increasing job hires overall.

Unless I've misunderstood this plan, it sounds like it could actually be a lifesaver, or at the least offer some hope, for some people, so I'm not gonna criticize it.

A different article I read discussed Germany's apprenticeship program, so they have one.

[readmoreoften]

17. Bullshit. Apprentices get paid. This is a slave labor scam.

I grew up with a father who worked for the Dept of Labor in NJ. Corporations would always try to get free labor in the guise of a "training program" and the state of NJ had agents who went out into the field to make sure that the companies were not having the trainees do productive work. They were only allowed to "shadow" employees. They were not allowed to generate profit for the industry.

This is a slave labor lottery.

[Honeycombe8]

28. Some do, some don't. It's not an all-or-nothing world. Let's let the long unemployed...

decide whether they want to sign up for this program, since they're the ones who stand to benefit.

If it helps some people, it's worth it.

They also receive extended unemployment benefits.

This program could really make a difference for some people, IMO. Reminds me of my sister, who found herself long term unemployed and no longer had the skills to get a job. And no way to learn them.

[DrunkenBoat]

61. Germany's "apprentice programs" are a part of ordinary schooling. They're

not unpaid labor programs for the unemployed.

"Georgia works" has a piss-poor record at placing people permanently in the workforce.

[The Gunslinger]

73. It's still slavery

No reason they can't get an income. This is a real slippery slope. The next thing you know every job will have a "non paid" training period.

[Angry Dragon]

7. From what I can tell is ryan has been in office since 1999

He has caused a lot of the problems this country faces.
He okayed the deficits that bush ran up.
He okayed two illegal wars
He presided over deregulation that caused the bank fraud
He voted for raising the debt limit while bush was in office

I suggest that any congressional person that thinks it is a
good idea that people work for free then they should be the first ones
that do that. ryan is worth millions so he should find it no hardship
to give up his congressional salary while he works to get this
country on its feet as long as he contributed so much to cause the problems

[Recursion]

9. How is working in exchange for aid "working for free"? (nt)

[Pigheaded]

16. This

They work and learn a new skill and draw a check.

[xynthee]

27. It's free for the corporation

But you're right. It's not free. We'll be paying for it.

Also, if Obama's program is like Georgia Works, the workers work up to 24 hours per week for up to eight weeks for a one-time payment of $240. So, worst-case scenario for the worker is making $1.25/hour, losing valuable job-hunting time and spending tons on childcare and transportation. (24 hours/week * 8 weeks = 192 hours, $240/192 = $1.25/hour)

I'm not familiar with Obama's plan, which would hopefully have some protections in place for the workers, but the potential for abuse seems to be limitless! Only 25% of Georgia Works participants were actually hired by the companies who took advantage of this.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-works-a-snapshot-1164213.html

[Recursion]

33. Isn't this the kind of direct government hiring DU has been clamoring for? (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

36. Not at all

[Recursion]

37. How is it not? They do a job and get paid by the government for it

It's a condition of extended unemployment benefits. Is the fact that it's coming out of that account rather than a different one what bothers you?

[DrunkenBoat]

62. Free labor for corporations, that's why. Business subsidy. More likely to

keep businesses from hiring.

WW2 programs created *new* things & *new* jobs, they didn't pay employers to fill existing jobs.

[Recursion]

63. Actually the WPA and CCC were provisioned out through contractors

So, basically, it was exactly like this.

[DrunkenBoat]

65. It was nothing like this. Supplying the lumber, nails & cement to build public works

is nothing like getting a free clerk-typist courtesy of the government.

[Recursion]

66. No, I mean the projects themselves were managed for a fee by corporations

Which is why FDR was called a corporatist sell-out by the DUers of his day

[DrunkenBoat]

67. Please prove to me that, for example, CCC projects were managed by corporations.

Furthermore, even if so, it's still not the same thing.

The point that seems to elude you is that they were *public* works. Chosen by the *public*, for the benefit of the *public*. Not jobs at private corporations, chosen by private corporations, for the ends of private corporations.

*New* jobs, creating *new* things. Not fill-in jobs at private corporations creating the same old shit, with free taxpayer-funded slave labor.

[tblue]

10. Wait. Is that in Obama's Jobs Plan???!

Can somebody please splain? HTH did I miss this?

[Honeycombe8]

14. It's an apprenticeship program. They receive training for free, in exchange for

working for free.

It sounds like it might be good for SOME people.

This is for that long term unemployed person...the one on the verge of losing everything. Once someone is unemployed a long time, it becomes even harder to find employment. This gives them a chance to get employment, as well as letting them get to learn a second occupation, which opens their job opportunities. I find it hard to criticize a program that some people would jump at the chance to participate in.

It's unclear to me whether that person gets extended unemployment compensation benefits for it, though. Many people can't afford to work for free....it actually costs money to work (travel expenses, shoes, lunch costs, etc.).

[GoCubsGo]

22. Not quite.

They won't be working for "free". They'll be collecting their unemployment benefits.

[Honeycombe8]

25. That's the one thing I was unsure of. So that's good. I think the unemployed should

be the ones to decide if they want to sign up for it, since it could possibly help them, not me or others.

If the program is passed, and it sucks, the unemployed won't sign up. If they do, though, and it helps some, then it was worth it. People are suffering out there.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

74. Yes. It's one of the programs up for consideration. Takes a while fir that

to sink in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. All that's missing is the overseers and whips.

[readmoreoften]

20. why bother with whips when the economy has you in chains?

That's the beauty of capitalism. All abuse, all theft, all atrocity is made abstract and rationalized.

[Initech]

15. If you expect me to work for free - fuck you!

[Honeycombe8]

29. Spoken like a little kid who has not ever suffered real hardship (hope you never do).

But for someone who is long term unemployed, & finds s/he doesn't have the right skills to compete for jobs, maybe s/he would find this program helpful. It could turn someone's life around, maybe.

If you don't want to do it, you don't have to.

They get training and extended unemployment benefits, and the shot at getting hired by the company training them. That's a hugely great opportunity for some people. If you've never been in a position to find such a thing helpful, good for you. You are lucky. Others are maybe not so lucky.

[lonestarnot]

34. Oh really, a "kid." My pet goat. Goat that trims the lawn for free. Or a real adult with talent

to offer, just not for fucking free.

[Honeycombe8]

41. It is getting close to your bedtime. There are juvenile forums online, if you look.

Or Facebook. nt

[TheKentuckian]

42. Wage destruction via an underclass that works for free isn't helping anyone on the net.

aka

More damage than good. Companies are already sitting on trillions while cutting wages, benefits, and jobs and people think it is a good idea to set up a way to further subsidize productivity? They pay nothing for labor and that is good because one can imagine a scenario where a few are helped into supposedly new skills?

[Honeycombe8]

45. Well, none of us knows for sure if it'll help. It will help SOME. But for long term

unemployed, I personally think (not that I KNOW, or that anyone else KNOWS for sure), but I think that probably nothing will help the numbers significantly except for unemployment to decrease to the point where employers are forced to hire long term unemployed. Just because employers don't want to hire long term unemployed...they think something's wrong with them, or they would have either not lost their job to begin with, or they would've found a job before now.

I'm just saying that for some, who are in a unique situation, this could be helpful. A person who doesn't have the right skills to get the jobs that ARE available, but can't afford training...this could be helpful. If it's not, then unemployed people won't sign up, and that's that.

I ran across this situation with one of my sisters years ago, is why I think this. This would've been a good program for her. I don't think she would've gotten hired, or even qualified for entry into the program (for other reasons). But it gives me a certain perspective into a particular problem.

Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe it's terrible. But I think the long term unemployed should decide, and they will. I'm just willing to give a lot of things a try right now. These are desperate times (for some).

[Initech]

57. Agreed, good point.

[Initech]

56. I still don't see the benefit of working for free.

And I don't care if I sound like a kid, but I'm not buying into this program one bit. This is just more of the same crap that the upper 1% is using to deprive us of minimum wages and keep us working 2 - 3 jobs to survive to pay all the bills. The thing is that I'm really glad that Obama is making it illegal to discriminate against unemployed people, but I'd personally rather be unemployed than work for free. Fuck that.

[Recursion]

60. I still don't see how doing work in exchange for money is "for free"

can you help me there?

[DrunkenBoat]

68. Yes, if you've suffered hardship, you are happy to work for free! Hardly.

It's more trust-funders who like to work for free -- since they have the family money & connections to guarantee it won't be forever.

"Training" = bs. The majority of jobs in the US don't require much training at all, besides how to smile & defer to one's betters.

We've got several of these so-called "training" programs in this state. You think you need special "training" to sell used items at a non-profit thrift store, shelve books at the library, or separate garbage from saleable items at Goodwill?

Are these "training" programs going to teach me how to fix automobiles, program computers or do brain surgery? I have the feeling that takes a bit longer than 8 weeks. For god's sake, what kind of transferable "training" are they going to provide?

I don't buy it.

[Brigid]

19. This still sounds like a scam to me.

It sounds like what temp agencies do routinely. They offer low wages and no benefits, but desperate people take the jobs in hopes that the company they are sent to will eventually hire them full-time. But why should the company do that, when hiring through a temp agency is so much cheaper?

No matter what kind of system might be put in place for this, companies will find a way to game it to their advantage. It won't work to the benefit of the unemployed. Nothing ever does.

[Honeycombe8]

30. The world has changed. Temp agencies DO offer benefits. And cos. DO hire

contract workers after using them thru temp agencies.

My firm has used a lot of contract workers over the years. It has hired some of them on as permanent. The reason they haven't hired more of them is...most of them were not good workers. They would come in late or not show up at all, have to leave early, sneak out to go to Starbucks, talk for long periods of time on the phone, or were just strange people. In other words, there was a good reason they weren't permanent employees somewhere.

But our firm has liked to hire SOME contract workers. It was a good way to see if someone would make a good employee, did good work, was reliable, got along with co-workers, etc.

Most cos. don't like contract workers except for special types of labor intensive projects. They're not dedicated like employees, they're not as productive as employees (they don't know their way around the company, procedure wise), they don't have full rights to do certain things (like full computer access), etc.

Some people here in Dallas work as contract workers for a living. They probably don't need a full time wage. But they can buy minimal insurance through the agency.

[Brigid]

32. That is not the way it works around here.

That is all I can say about that.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Could be the difference between a larger vs smaller city.

There have to be a lot of employers for there to be an active temp agency business.

[Recursion]

40. Yeah it's a lot "easier" to be unemployed in a city

There was a time between contracts in Boston where I actually did ok just answering ads in the "Gigs" section of Craigslist for a couple of months. No way I could do that in a less dense area, though.

[lonestarnot]

35. Splains it Dallas.

[Honeycombe8]

38. What's your point? It's good to know that if I get laid off, I can go sign up

at a temp agency and at least have hope for work soon, while looking for permanent employment. And if necessary, I can buy health insurance through the agency.

Those are good things. The small city I come from - if you lose your job, your only hope is to find another permanent one. Temp ones are few and far between, and you can't make even a part-time living being signed on with one. But that's partly the difference between a large and a small city.

No need to insult Dallas. It has its faults, but so does New York, Los Angeles, and any other large city. (Except Dallas isn't a huge city; it's half the size pop. wise of Houston...which also has a vibrant temp worker business.)

[Fuzz]

26. Not surprising at all.

[Vinca]

43. So I guess for the time people aren't being paid the landlord

will give them free rent, the grocery store will give them free food, they'll get free gas for the car and any medical care they might need will be covered. And Obama proposed it.:banghead:

[Recursion]

46. In exchange for doing the training they get extended unemployment benefits

So calling this "working for free" doesn't really make much sense for me.

Like I said above it sounds a lot like the kind of direct government hiring the board has been clamoring for.

[Honeycombe8]

47. They're getting extended unemp. benefits. nt

[Vinca]

49. I didn't realize that. Apparently Paul Ryan doesn't know, either.

[Recursion]

50. What are you talking about?

He's talking about the Georgia plan, the whole point of which is conditioning extended employment benefits on on-site job training.

[Vinca]

51. And Paul Ryan is going to vote for extending unemployment benefits?

Right. Highly unlikely he and his bagger crew would sign on for that little item.

[Recursion]

53. Umm... he did, in 2010

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/647

So... what were you saying?

[Vinca]

54. This isn't 2010. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[TheKentuckian]

71. The companies that refuse to hire sitting on piles of money, get free productivity

subsidized by the government which creates even less demand for labor, which in turn lowers wages further.

[David Sky]

44. I don't know about everybody else here, but when I read that Obama and Ryan AGREE, ...

I shudder to think what the USA will look like in 2015, after 4-5 more years of them "agreeing"!

Obama is TERRIBLE at compromises, we have learned THAT, at least, in the last 33 months.

Now, if Obama and Ryan agree that it's OKAY to give companies free labor, in exchange for what companies used to have to pay wages and benefits (and worker withholding and FICA taxes) for.... well I'd like to start a business then...

I'll need about 100 workers, which the government can pay for, and I'll "train" them for four or six weeks, then I won't be required to hire them, since I'm not yet making enough money from my business, I'll let them go, and "hire" another 100, all on the government's expense... rinse and repeat...over and over, until I'm ready to retire.

What would possibly be wrong with such an easy way to make $? Obama and Ryan agree!!!!

[Recursion]

48. Even in normal times trainees don't have to be paid minimum wage

or in some circumstances even paid at all.

Look, this is a way to leverage unemployment dollars into job training and exposure to employers. These are three things long term unemployed people are short of. How is this not a good idea?

[David Sky]

58. I don't know where you live, but "trainees" in most jobs make minimum wage

or better.

When "trainee" managers in restaurants are hired, they are hired at well above "minimum" wage. That's the only occupation I am familiar with... but in that occupation, "trainee" is someone learning a complex management job in a matter of weeks or months, and being hired into that job at the end of satisfactory performance as a "trainee".

I know of sub-minimum "trainee" wages for developmentally disabled folks, as an incentive to hire those folks after a longer trainee period than others without disabilities would need. I know of "trainee" wages for high school students in certain states, even for simple repetitive jobs like McDonalds type work, but not universally. In my local McDonalds, new hires make MORE THAN state minimum, since it's a demanding, physically exhausting job and has fewer people applying for some shifts. High school and college age workers have the energy, but not always the time to be more than part time workers, and they can make better than minimum wages from day one.

I think you missed the point. The employer here pays ZERO $ under this Obama Ryan agreed plan! The government pays EVERY dollar of the "trainee" wage, in the PLACE OF unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.

The employer gets free labor, and has no obligation to hire the "trainee" EVER!

What part of that looks good to you? Large corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, and NOT hiring.
McDonalds and Walmart are seeing good but not excellent sales figures, and are hiring into low paying, yet minimum wage jobs or above minimum wage jobs where they are "trained" and supervised well to learn their skills and perform all required tasks within weeks. Other companies are simply not hiring because there is not enough demand for their goods or services to hire, and IF there WERE more demand, they could pay as they always have, minimum wage or above for satisfactory job performance.

This is not a good plan, Georgia has proof it's not working already.

[Recursion]

59. Exactly. It's the kind of direct government hiring the board has been yelling for, right?

So what's wrong with it? We've been asking for direct government hiring for years now, here.

[OhioChick]

55. If Ryan supports this, it can't be a good idea....

While I don't know a lot regarding this plan, it sounds like corporations will be given the power to exploit it's workers.

Let's say for example that (insert corp here) says they'll offer training for say, 200 potential temp workers. Who's to say that they won't layoff their current workers in a few months and hire the temps at slave wages?

Also, from what I've been seeing, a large percentage of the population don't need job training. Many have a variety of skill sets. They just need a job.

Bad idea, in my opinion.

[ThomWV]

69. Slavery rarely is a good idea, you're right about that.

[lib2DaBone]

70. It's an "Intern Program".. which we USED to get paid for back in the 90's.

Thanks to UNIONS.. we got the 40 hour work week.. 15 minute bathroom breaks and a livable wage.

Does ANYONE think that the Bully Robber-Barrons would have EVER given the workers even one bathroom break.. if the Unions handn't fought for it?

[The Gunslinger]

72. Obama is proposing this?????

[white_wolf]

75. I used to be worried about Fascism, but I was wrong.

I should have been worried about Feudalism.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

76. Nothing good will come of this no matter how positive an emphasis

you try to put on it. Obama is not incompetent but dangerous.

[JCMach1]

77. Back in the day they called that-- SLAVERY

Guess that's just old-think...