# CBS airs a complete BS story



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57362397/s.c.s-new-controversial-unemployment-rules/?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea#comments



> Under the new rule, after a month of collecting benefits, the unemployed must now accept any offer for a job that pays at least 90 percent of what they used to earn. After 5 months, workers must accept a job that pays minimum wage, or $7.25 an hour.


Completely untrue.

How do they get away with airing such utter cowflop? Do they even fact check their stories?


----------



## Master slacker (Jan 20, 2012)

How dare you question mainstream media. Go away and sulk in your backwards-thinking closet, you reasonably minded individual.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

The thing is, think how many saw it and believed it. SC has maybe 4 million people out of a country of over 300 million, and I'd bet 75% of the people in SC that saw it probably believed it.

1984 is here.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 20, 2012)

But, but, but it was on fox news too, so it MUST be true! They're FAIR and BALANCED!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/12/sc-makes-it-harder-to-get-unemployment-benefits/


----------



## IlPadrino (Jan 20, 2012)

What's the real "new law"? How completely untrue is the story?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

There is no 'new law.' The closest thing is that the governor said a few weeks ago that people over 6 months should donate 16 hours a week to community service, and that was roundly criticized and never was brought up formally.

That stuff I quoted is a complete fabrication.

Even if they tried something like that, the feds would shut them right down.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> But, but, but it was on fox news too, so it MUST be true! They're FAIR and BALANCED!
> 
> http://www.foxnews.c...yment-benefits/


That article was a bit more in depth. Sounds like the head of the SC Unemployment commision wants changes, but the legislature isn't letting them be even bought up. I had heard that they were trying to cut benefits if you were fired for cause, which I already thought was the case.


----------



## csb (Jan 20, 2012)

Phew! I thought csb ran a BS story and I thought, "WHAT DID I SAY?!"


----------



## IlPadrino (Jan 20, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> There is no 'new law.' The closest thing is that the governor said a few weeks ago that people over 6 months should donate 16 hours a week to community service, and that was roundly criticized and never was brought up formally.
> 
> That stuff I quoted is a complete fabrication.
> 
> Even if they tried something like that, the feds would shut them right down.


What about http://www.scstateho.../bills/1049.htm and http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2012/01/10/legislators-look-to-toughen-rules-for-unemployment-benefits/?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

That's the proposed 16 hours of community service thing. 'In commitee' basically means its a dead issue. I dodn't realize it had even gotten that far.

Campbell is the son of an ex-governor who is just trying to make political hay with this.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 20, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> There is no 'new law.' The closest thing is that the governor said a few weeks ago that people over 6 months should donate 16 hours a week to community service, and that was roundly criticized and never was brought up formally.
> 
> That stuff I quoted is a complete fabrication.
> 
> Even if they tried something like that, the feds would shut them right down.


16 hrs a week might be little harsh, but something closer to 6-8hrs a month might not be a bad idea...if they are getting money why not give back a little time...they will feel better about themselves too. If they get food stamps or other financial help i think community service is a great idea. We have a couple volunteers at the food pantry that volunteer to sort of give back since they need the food the food pantry provides.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 20, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> 16 hrs a week might be little harsh, but something closer to 6-8hrs a month might not be a bad idea...if they are getting money why not give back a little time...they will feel better about themselves too. If they get food stamps or other financial help i think community service is a great idea. We have a couple volunteers at the food pantry that volunteer to sort of give back since they need the food the food pantry provides.


If it was voluntary, I'd agree. But forcing someone to volunteer is akin to slave labor. Then you have the issue of workers comp insurance and who pays for it for the volunteers, as well as transportation issues. It is one of those ideas that sounds good until you start getting into the mechanics of it.

Interesting article (and comments...lots of comments) on that proposal: http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/10/2107688/sc-bill-would-require-unemployed.html


----------



## Wolverine (Jan 20, 2012)

Also, my experience has been that if these (admittedly straw-) people had the kind of work ethic it takes to go do community service, they wouldn't be unemployed. Not for long at least.

Of the unemployed people I knew &amp; know, they hold out for the job they think they deserve, not the one they can get.

By living example: one person I know looked for over a year, which was fine because she was getting $330/wk unemployment.

Another living example has been out of work 3 years but is "hopefully getting a job soon." She lives off her ex-husbands child support.

I'm not knocking unemployment, child support, or looking for a better job, I'm just saying that starving can be a strong motivational force for lazy, arrogant unemployed people; community service is not.

I'm a little spoiled because I've always been blessed with a solid career and portable job skills, but then again that's because I made it so.


----------



## goodal (Jan 20, 2012)

Boy are you fixin to get it for that post...


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 20, 2012)

Wolverine said:


> Also, my experience has been that if these (admittedly straw-) people had the kind of work ethic it takes to go do community service, they wouldn't be unemployed. Not for long at least.
> 
> Of the unemployed people I knew &amp; know, they hold out for the job they think they deserve, not the one they can get.
> 
> ...


Wow, and you're the one talking about arrogant?

Hope your mom ends up unemployed for 5 years like mine did, through no fault of her own, other than having to raise a family on her own for 10 years so she couldn't go back to school, and ending up being laid off in her 50s, hardly getting any call backs despite applying for jobs left and right because she's too old and they want young good-looking women for the type of work she has experience in. Because I'm sure your mom had plenty of time to "make it so" that she has portable job skills and a solid career while she was raising you.


----------



## Master slacker (Jan 20, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## IlPadrino (Jan 20, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Hope your mom ends up...


You don't really mean this, do you?


----------



## Wolverine (Jan 23, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Hope your mom ends up unemployed for 5 years like mine did, through no fault of her own, other than having to raise a family on her own for 10 years so she couldn't go back to school, and ending up being laid off in her 50s, hardly getting any call backs despite applying for jobs left and right because she's too old and they want young good-looking women for the type of work she has experience in. Because I'm sure your mom had plenty of time to "make it so" that she has portable job skills and a solid career while she was raising you.


It's clear to see that you are/were very frustrated with your mom's situation and I know the economy up there has been difficult.
Unfortunately, I have nothing to relate to since - and this is in defense of my position - my parents were in and out of jobs for several years, but never stayed unemployed long, and that's how I was brought up. Mom took on some crappy jobs, jobs that nobody else wanted, dealt with criminally idiotic bosses, and went back for new certifications, all with (faux) optimism until she found her niche teaching in a small rural school for many years until she retired. My parents actually uprooted, packed up, and left the country for a while when a much needed job opportunity came open overseas. I'm not intending to suggest that my-mom-could-beat-up-your-mom, only that my personal experience has been that the few times in life I was out of work was because I was not doing the right things to get the work I wanted. I take full responsibility for that and don't understand why everybody doesn't. I don't believe it's the government's job to dole out jobs or unemployment checks or declare how many hours of community service someone has to do to get their check. Still I can sympathize with your experience; it's just not something I can relate to.


----------



## cdcengineer (Jan 26, 2012)

During the great depression they had people build walls and things like that for public projects rather than just hand out free money. The city I grew up in had tons of beautiful stone walls surrounding the cemetery, beach, etc.

Today we let those jobs got o illegals while the lazy sit and collect while suckling the tit'

Stories like your Mom's are tough, and we have welfare and unemployment for these situations. However we have many more socialist moochers in line at the trough.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 27, 2012)

cdcengineer said:


> During the great depression they had people build walls and things like that for public projects rather than just hand out free money. The city I grew up in had tons of beautiful stone walls surrounding the cemetery, beach, etc.


Yeah, we have a bunch of WPA built cabins around here and in the upstate. I think that was probably a better way to handle it.



ngnrd - PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > ... If it was voluntary, I'd agree. But forcing someone to volunteer is akin to slave labor. ...
> ...


You're right!


----------



## goodal (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm sorry but why shouldn't people work to get a check? Unemployment or not, shouldn't they have to do something for it? I think something like 15 hrs a week would be a reasonable amount of time for someone to collect on an unemployment check. They could do 3 hrs a day or 2 full days a week and still have time to either go to school or look for a job. I'm not saying make the 55 yr old grandmother brick a bldg, but pick something constructive that they can physically do and assign them a task. What is wrong with that?


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 27, 2012)

The problem with that is because of the transient (hopefully and by design) nature of people on public assistance you would need a staff to continually "train" people on the "job" that you want them to do. Otherwise you're essentially hiring them on a part time basis. Even simple things like emptying waste baskets or sweeping floors would require assiatnce from someone familiar with the building to escort the worker around and show them where the "supplies" are and what is expected of them. There isn't a simple solution to put this into practice


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 27, 2012)

adopt a highway programs...then the roads will be free of litter


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jan 27, 2012)

I thought the only people to qualify for unemployment were people who were previously employed. They spent their time paying into the system as an employee, thus EARNING their benefits, then when they were laid off filed a claim. I do agree however that unemployment benefits should be revised to have a hard cap on claims though.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 27, 2012)

I am surprised how long unemployment lasts now. When I was on it, max was six months, and was extended to nine months after 9/11.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 27, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I am surprised how long unemployment lasts now. When I was on it, max was six months, and was extended to nine months after 9/11.


Last I heard, it was 99 weeks which translates into almost 2 years.


----------



## engineergurl (Jan 27, 2012)

I know my dad has been on unemployment for a while, but there is some sort of deal where he found a job but the company couldn't make enough hours for him to be comparable, so he worked 20 hours a week and collected the rest to make ends meet. He did payroll for them, but I remember he also took out the trash, cleaned toilets etc etc etc.. he is nearly at the age where he can start collecting social security and because he was able to do this, he didn't have to cash in his retirement plan early (which would have had penelties) for the company he had previously worked for (had put in 30+years before things were merged, consolidated, certain portions closed and he was layed off)

I do know that 2 years seems to be the going time frame for most people that I have known that had collected.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 27, 2012)

my cousin's wife got layed off a week after they got married so late feb 2010 and she just found a job in dec after the unployment ran out in like october or november of 2011...so not quite 2 yrs.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 27, 2012)

ngnrd - PE said:


> Hey Snick, if the checks stopped coming after 6 months, do you think it would have taken her two years to find a new job? Or if she had to put in 10 hours a week as a "copay"? I'm not trying to start anything here. I really am curious.


In my case I got 9 months of unemployment, but was out of work for two years. What held me back was that I really wanted to stay in the area, so I was only looking within a commuting distance, and no jobs were available.

I was underemployed for two years after that. I was pretty close to deciding to move when a good local job finally came along.

It was really kind of depressing to me.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 27, 2012)

She was seriously looking after the layoff then they got pregnant and no one would hire her. She had interviews but once they saw she was preggers their interest instantly disappeared.

It would depend on what she would have to do for a copay she is a little high maintanance, but she is the kind of person who would do something if asked.

Like capt, she had to look locally and the number of opening was limited


----------



## engineergurl (Jan 27, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> She was seriously looking after the layoff then they got pregnant and no one would hire her. She had interviews but once they saw she was preggers their interest instantly disappeared.
> 
> It would depend on what she would have to do for a copay she is a little high maintanance, but she is the kind of person who would do something if asked.
> 
> Like capt, she had to look locally and the number of opening was limited



Same with my Dad, he would get interviews, but then it was like when they saw how old he was and realized he would only need a job a few more years, they didn't want to hire him. He already volunteers to get out of the house anyway, and has taken several computer classes out of his own pocket (with the unemployment money but still) to help... now... he's just transitioned to social security though so I think he only wants to go back to work to get away from my mom and grandma that lives with them....


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 3, 2012)

Did you guys see the new unemployment numbers? The rate dropped to 8.3%. Supposedly, 245,000 jobs were added in January, but I think the drop in the rate was mainly based on 1.2 million people dropping off the unemployment benefits (i.e., they stopped searching for a job). The participation rate is now at 63.7% which means that percentage of citizens over the age of 16 actually hold a job. That's pretty pitiful, but I'm sure Obama is going to tout his job-creation measures as the reason the unemployment rate is falling.

All of my numbers came from articles linked to by Drudge Report, if you want clarification.


----------

