CDZ Unemployment reform idea

[Toronado3800]

Another thread and recent events at work have brought this up.

We have had a problem with interviewees no-showing for job interviews. Maybe they got another job in the mean time. Maybe they got drunk. Maybe their car broke down. But it happens alot.

The position we usually hire for is a start at $30,000, probably make $50,000 when you get good type job. Not wealthy but it is good honest work and good money in Missouri.

So my idea was if someone no-shows for an interview you notify the state. Two or three reports of that and it ends their unemployment benefits.

Too harsh?

 

[pinqy]

Another thread and recent events at work have brought this up.

We have had a problem with interviewees no-showing for job interviews. Maybe they got another job in the mean time. Maybe they got drunk. Maybe their car broke down. But it happens alot.

The position we usually hire for is a start at $30,000, probably make $50,000 when you get good type job. Not wealthy but it is good honest work and good money in Missouri.

So my idea was if someone no-shows for an interview you notify the state. Two or three reports of that and it ends their unemployment benefits.

Too harsh?

Well....that would put an added burden on the state as they would have to determine if the no-show was receiving benefits and to notice if the no-show were to attempt to apply later. And then they'd have to see if the no-show did have any legitimate job searches in the same time frame.

What would be more practical would be if the employment agency confirmed at least one job search claim per time period for each person receiving benefits.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Another thread and recent events at work have brought this up.

We have had a problem with interviewees no-showing for job interviews. Maybe they got another job in the mean time. Maybe they got drunk. Maybe their car broke down. But it happens alot.

The position we usually hire for is a start at $30,000, probably make $50,000 when you get good type job. Not wealthy but it is good honest work and good money in Missouri.

So my idea [is] if someone no-shows for an interview you notify the state. Two or three reports of that and it ends their unemployment benefits.

Too harsh?

Before I will offer thoughts on the harshness of the proposal, you need to answer a question. To what extent are you certain the no-showing applicants receive unemployment benefits? It seems by your OP comments that you don't even know if the specific individuals who failed to appear are employed elsewhere. Do you only receive applications from people are lack a job? Damn near everyone who applies for experienced-hire roles in my firm is already working in a competing firm or "industry" job. (I've never had campus recruiting applicants no-show; they at least call or email to let us know they are no longer interested.)

Harsh or not, if there aren't enough people receiving those benefits, it's an ineffectual proposal. There's no point in enacting a draconian measure if it's not going to solve a problem....Speaking of which, just what problem are you trying to solve? And what analysis have you conducted to determine whether the administrative cost of implementing your proposal don't obviate the value of enacting it in the first place?

The proposal seems to me like an administrative burden that doesn't and cannot actually yield savings or revenue for taxpayers. It seems that way because at the end of the day, a business has a job to fill and it's going to fill it assuming there are qualified people who apply for it. The people who don't show up for their interview aren't, by not having shown up, changing that fact. Moreover, unless the firm hires someone who is unemployed, your proposal isn't going to alter the employment rate in your community. Because it's not, is why I'm asking what problem you are trying to solve. That people don't want a job isn't a problem. That people want or need a job and there is no job they can obtain is a problem. I don't see your proposal as ameliorating the incidence of that problem or any other employment problem that the government is tasked with abating or reducing.

Be that as it may, I've not considered the quantitative costs of doing so in any jurisdiction, let alone nationally. Hopefully you have, seeing as it's your proposal, and can answer the question.

(I don't expect you have detailed figures, but since you've made the proposal, I'd expect you have some credible "ballpark" figures that point to the viability of your proposal.)

 

[jwoodie]

I favor mandatory work details like in the WPA. If you don't show up, you don't receive benefits. (You can get time off for a job interview, but you have to bring back verification.) Socially, this would lessen the shock of having to get up in the morning and go to work.

 

[Toronado3800]

I like the WPA also.

Hopefully my idea wouldn't push too much trouble on the states. Any work might be offset by money saved in benefits.

 

[Toronado3800]

Another thread and recent events at work have brought this up.

We have had a problem with interviewees no-showing for job interviews. Maybe they got another job in the mean time. Maybe they got drunk. Maybe their car broke down. But it happens alot.

The position we usually hire for is a start at $30,000, probably make $50,000 when you get good type job. Not wealthy but it is good honest work and good money in Missouri.

So my idea [is] if someone no-shows for an interview you notify the state. Two or three reports of that and it ends their unemployment benefits.

Too harsh?

Before I will offer thoughts on the harshness of the proposal, you need to answer a question. To what extent are you certain the no-showing applicants receive unemployment benefits? It seems by your OP comments that you don't even know if the specific individuals who failed to appear are employed elsewhere. Do you only receive applications from people are lack a job? Damn near everyone who applies for experienced-hire roles in my firm is already working in a competing firm or "industry" job. (I've never had campus recruiting applicants no-show; they at least call or email to let us know they are no longer interested.)

Harsh or not, if there aren't enough people receiving those benefits, it's an ineffectual proposal. There's no point in enacting a draconian measure if it's not going to solve a problem....Speaking of which, just what problem are you trying to solve? And what analysis have you conducted to determine whether the administrative cost of implementing your proposal don't obviate the value of enacting it in the first place?

The proposal seems to me like an administrative burden that doesn't and cannot actually yield savings or revenue for taxpayers. It seems that way because at the end of the day, a business has a job to fill and it's going to fill it assuming there are qualified people who apply for it. The people who don't show up for their interview aren't, by not having shown up, changing that fact. Moreover, unless the firm hires someone who is unemployed, your proposal isn't going to alter the employment rate in your community. Because it's not, is why I'm asking what problem you are trying to solve. That people don't want a job isn't a problem. That people want or need a job and there is no job they can obtain is a problem. I don't see your proposal as ameliorating the incidence of that problem or any other employment problem that the government is tasked with abating or reducing.

Be that as it may, I've not considered the quantitative costs of doing so in any jurisdiction, let alone nationally. Hopefully you have, seeing as it's your proposal, and can answer the question.

(I don't expect you have detailed figures, but since you've made the proposal, I'd expect you have some credible "ballpark" figures that point to the viability of your proposal.)

Thank you for the well written and thought provoking reply.

I am not certain in the least the no shows are still unemployed or are drawing benefits.

If none of them are then great, no one gets their benefits cut off and I am too harsh on humans. Pure Socialism and Capitalism don't work because of human failings though. Back when the economy tanked I still had friends who were part of the failure to launch group. Enough milked unemployment benefits I know it is a thing. How many people currently are? I dunno.

The quantitative costs?

-State unemployment rolls get smaller. How much smaller I do not know like you figured.
-Some people lose their benefits and have to show up at their next interview.
-The state is going to have to pay something to monitor the list. I like to think they already have the file but it is going to create a couple jobs monitoring this. Maybe that will be offset by savings. I don't know again.

Would you support this proposal? Why or why not?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't have time right now to give you a complete answer. I will do so either later tonight or tomorrow. I have to prepare cocktails and dinner right now.

QUOTE="Toronado3800, post: 16547454, member: 21645"]Thank you for the well written and thought provoking reply.[/QUOTE]

You're welcome.

Would you support this proposal? Why or why not?

My short answer, just so you know what's coming, is "no." As you've presented it thus far, I don't see the fiscal value in it; I don't even see hints of any.

 

[Fishlore]

If the unemployment insurance law in Missouri is funded by a payroll tax, your company is paying for the benefits of people who may be abusing the system by not actively looking for work as they agreed to do when signing up. You have a stake in preventing such abuse. Reporting the no-show to the state is quite reasonable.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The quantitative costs?

-State unemployment rolls get smaller. How much smaller I do not know like you figured.
-Some people lose their benefits and have to show up at their next interview.
-The state is going to have to pay something to monitor the list. I like to think they already have the file but it is going to create a couple jobs monitoring this. Maybe that will be offset by savings. I don't know again.

Would you support this proposal? Why or why not?

Would you support this proposal? Why or why not?

I told you I'd explain my "no" answer, so....

Overall, I answered "no" because I asked you what problem you think your proposal solves and you've not answered that question. I'm not about to support a proposal that purports to solve a problem and I don't know, because the proposer hasn't explicitly and clearly stated so, what problem it aims to solve. I can tell you've sort of "danced around" identifying a problem, but you're asking for a binary answer with an explanation of why or why not. There's no way I'll answer in the affirmative to your question given your lack of specificity and clarity about the nature and extent of objectives your proposal seeks to achieve.

In addition to your not having clearly defined the problem you want to overcome, you have yet written of outcomes from your proposal. I have some thoughts about them, but bear in mind that my thoughts are offered only in a general sense. Here again, without a clearly defined problem to be solved, it's not even certain the outcomes you mention can reasonably be expected to result from the solution approach (proposal), to say nothing of whether, even if they do come about, they worth investing resources to achieve.

-State unemployment rolls get smaller. How much smaller I do not know like you figured.

I don't see that you've established there's a causal relationship between merely showing up for an interview and a reduction in the quantity of state unemployment benefit recipients. You need to establish that correlation because:

• The no-show folks on whom you've focused need to be receiving unemployment in order for your proposal to reduce unemploy benefit payouts.
• One must be able to both predict and later measure the effectiveness of your proposal. If lots of no-show individuals don't receive benefits, how is one to know whether reducing unemployment rolls is even a reasonable outcome to expect from the proposal?

Obviously, you could recast your idea by stating that you've assumed truant applicants do indeed receive unemployment benefits, but as things stand right now, doing that would leave a huge gap in the credibility of any argument you'd make in favor of your proposal. If, on the other hand, you were to show -- perhaps by citing a rigorously performed study that establishes that X% of no-show applicants receive unemployment benefits -- that your assumption is reasonable, you can then base your estimate of monetary savings/impact on that study.

-Some people lose their benefits and have to show up at their next interview.

So what? Showing up for an interview in no way indicates a person will receive job.

I believe you mentioned earlier that if folks fail to appear for two or three interviews, they lose their benefits. Well, if that's the case, if for whatever reason, folks hit the limit, they will find themselves in a position of, at their discretion, showing up for interviews or not. As an employer, and in consideration of your OP's anecdote, that doesn't seem like it'd do you any good.

I should mention here that when I read your OP, I got the distinct sense that what you want to see stopped is people not showing up for interviews they scheduled with you. It seemed to me you are merely annoyed that their failure to appear resulted in you incurring a greater opportunity cost with regard to your time. I didn't see much of anything that suggested to me that your proposal issues from your having a sincere desire to ameliorate unemployment rates.

What I saw was mostly a proposal that, at least in your mind, would reduce the possibility that you'd waste your time waiting for someone to arrive only to find they just aren't going to do so. That's not a proposal focused on reducing unemployment; it's a proposal that's all about you.

I think you probably would like to see unemployment rates lower, but my sense from the nature of the OP is that you desire that only as an abstract thing, that is to say in the sense that lower unemployment rates must necessarily be a good thing, therefore you'd like to see them go down. That's great. Everybody wants that. That you and everyone else wants to see that end materialize doesn't make yours or any other proposal be an efficient and effective way of achieving it.

The state is going to have to pay something to monitor the list. I like to think they already have the file but it is going to create a couple jobs monitoring this. Maybe that will be offset by savings. I don't know again.

The notions here depend on several things being true or at least directionally correct:

• No-shows actually receiving unemployment benefits
• The cost estimate for running the initiative --> Your sense about the nature of the process, given state laws -- for arbitration, notification, customer/constituent/legislator servicing, document processing, building space, software development, management oversight, etc. -- is grossly understated. There are a variety of ways to implement the processes needed to support the proposal, but none of them are cheap...They aren't billions and billions of dollars, but it's easily a million dollar start-up for the first year. And to what end?
• Savings? --> What savings? You have no idea at all -- not even a rough and dirty one based on some sort of solid metrics and reasonably sound assumptions -- what the potential savings might be. How can you even broach the word "savings" into this conversation and you haven't even established the likelihood that there will be any whatsoever? Sure, you can wish for some -- and yes, you did say "I'like to think," so yes, it's clear you are wishing -- but if you want me to agree at least that the idea has merit, enough that it's worth exploring in greater detail, you'd need to do more than wishfully think.

So, do you understand now why I answered "no" to your question?


FWIW, if you want to make a proposal, and ask someone whether they'll agree to it, you'll need to:

1. Accurately and completely understand and define the situation.
2. Identify a problem found in the solution.
3. Show that the problem not only exists, but also needs to be solved. (Not all problems need to be solved.)
4. Propose a solution approach.
5. Justify the approach using credible and sound reasoning and data.