Welfare Recipients to Start Cleaning the Subways

[jillian]

I'm kind of hoping that the thread title was in error. It's impossible to confuse unemployment insurance with "welfare".

I have no problem with welfare recipients doing work.

But I have a huge problem with any entity, private or governmental, firing it's workforce to get cheap labor via the feds.

it's a little too arbeit macht frei for my tastes.

i wonder if they need the little kids' hands to polish the insides of the.... .



switching mechanisms.

You were hoping the thread title was in error?

unemployment insurance isn't welfare. and mischaracterizing it that way is simply wrong.

 

[syrenn]

I my opinion ALL able bodied people receiving any kind of assistance should have to put in mandatory hours into some type of community service program each week to receive a check.

that isn't my problem with this.

my problem with this is mta laying off people so they can get cheap labor.

I don't have a problem with people on the government teat preforming a service to and for public.

If mta laid off worker they laid off workers, i really don't care. I am sure the unions are all pissed off about this thing too.

I don't see it as "cheap labor" i see it as people doing something for that check they are receiving instead of sitting on their asses.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's not exactly the case. It's contract labor...the MTA will be paying this WEP group for the work. If it's anything it's Union busting.

I have a weird feeling about this whole thing. Let me see if I understand

The MTA laid off workers because they dont have money

The MTA wants to have free labor (I'm not even touching that "job skills" bs arguement)

The Labor will come from people who receive some sort of assistance

The Labor will not be paid for by the MTA

I dunno, the MTA seems like they are trying to keep money (by firing) and make more money paid for by tax dollars? I know the need for the MTA in NY but uh...

This seems weird...

The MTA is a government agency, isn't it? Welfare is a government program. I don't really see any issue here.

 

[Trajan]

Seems like Clinton's welfare to work programs that fell by the wayside when Rs took over.

oh for god sakes.

 

[Trajan]

I'm kind of hoping that the thread title was in error. It's impossible to confuse unemployment insurance with "welfare".

I have no problem with welfare recipients doing work.

But I have a huge problem with any entity, private or governmental, firing it's workforce to get cheap labor via the feds.

it's a little too arbeit macht frei for my tastes.

i wonder if they need the little kids' hands to polish the insides of the.... .



switching mechanisms.

You were hoping the thread title was in error?

unemployment insurance isn't welfare. and mischaracterizing it that way is simply wrong.

I think it is when you extend it more than once, but thats just me.

 

[Intense]

That's not exactly the case. It's contract labor...the MTA will be paying this WEP group for the work. If it's anything it's Union busting.

I have a weird feeling about this whole thing. Let me see if I understand

The MTA laid off workers because they dont have money

The MTA wants to have free labor (I'm not even touching that "job skills" bs arguement)

The Labor will come from people who receive some sort of assistance

The Labor will not be paid for by the MTA

I dunno, the MTA seems like they are trying to keep money (by firing) and make more money paid for by tax dollars? I know the need for the MTA in NY but uh...

This seems weird...

Government alway's contracts when it wants something for nothing, or when real work needs to be done. Where have you been???

 

[Sallow]

I my opinion ALL able bodied people receiving any kind of assistance should have to put in mandatory hours into some type of community service program each week to receive a check.

that isn't my problem with this.

my problem with this is mta laying off people so they can get cheap labor.

I don't have a problem with people on the government teat preforming a service to and for public.

If mta laid off worker they laid off workers, i really don't care. I am sure the unions are all pissed off about this thing too.

I don't see it as "cheap labor" i see it as people doing something for that check they are receiving instead of sitting on their asses.

Basically..I don't have a problem with it either..as long as they aren't doing something like going to school to better themselves. So if they are sitting at home...doing nothing..and becoming use to that..it's a good idea. And they should be placed in a position where there is a need..but no one formerly employed filling that need.

We have a progam here called "The John Doe Program". It takes homeless men off the streets and has them doing clean up work on the streets that isn't handled by Sanitation.

I am all for that.

 

[syrenn]

that isn't my problem with this.

my problem with this is mta laying off people so they can get cheap labor.

I don't have a problem with people on the government teat preforming a service to and for public.

If mta laid off worker they laid off workers, i really don't care. I am sure the unions are all pissed off about this thing too.

I don't see it as "cheap labor" i see it as people doing something for that check they are receiving instead of sitting on their asses.

Basically..I don't have a problem with it either..as long as they aren't doing something like going to school to better themselves. So if they are sitting at home...doing nothing..and becoming use to that..it's a good idea. And they should be placed in a position where there is a need..but no one formerly employed filling that need.

We have a progam here called "The John Doe Program". It takes homeless men off the streets and has them doing clean up work on the streets that isn't handled by Sanitation.

I am all for that.

I agree. There is a lot they can do as community service. I don't even care if they are put in places where they assist regular workers. If they are not in school i think 10 hours a week would be just fine.

 

[kaz]

I consider data to be factual. Studies that clearly state what they are measuring and how they go about it. I don't consider the unsubstantiated opinion of political talking heads or any publication to be more then an opinion.

Again.

Name the source you consider factual..or stop the nonsense.

It's a very simple task.

Asked and answered. I don't know who if anyone has studied this. But if they did, then I want to know what exactly they measured and how they went about it. I don't trust the "opinion" of anyone as evidence, only an opinion. I don't know what you're looking for here other then an out. I want actual data and a clear definition of what data they collected and how. Did they study people who went through the Clinton "job training" or not?

I knew I wouldn't get an answer to this from you because there is no way anyone did a study and found out that any government program actually paid off financially. The only article you're going to find is a liberal rag going out and interviewing enough people to write an article on their anecdotal stories on how Clinton's job program helped them. But government programs are politically motivated and the whole idea of job training by government involves government choosing what to train people in, which involves politicians and bureaucrats thinking about how to spend other people's money, which is never going to end well.

The way to train people on jobs is lower and simplify taxes for corporations and the rich and get government out of the way. Then companies will need workers and train them to do what they need, not what politicians want to train them to do. And in the meantime, they should work for the people's money. That you don't value people working for money they receive is just sad and certainly explains your extreme political ideology.

 

[Jackson]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with welfare recipients earning the money they get from the government. The key word here was "earning". These recipients have general lost the feeling of feeling of being productive and part of the community. It's a beginning and a start of a work history for some.

My understanding is the MTV doesn't keep any money, the fund they had for these employees were from the government and won't be given because of this program. This is a great idea and many openings for school, other job opportunities just may develop through this program.

 

[chanel]

The program has been around for a while. I'm sure there are success stories, as well as problems. But the subways are filthy and need to be cleaned and the MTA has no money.

We have a job program down here for disabled people. Businesses who hire the handicapped get wages subsidized by the govt. Some people argue that it puts "able bodied" people out of work by hiring cheaper labor, but for the disabled that want to work, it is a blessing. You can't please all the people...

 

[Sallow]

Seems like Clinton's welfare to work programs that fell by the wayside when Rs took over.

oh for god sakes.

It did.

Bush discontinued counting education as work in the program.