>From: Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu>
>Subject: Re: Bugs in free markets.
>Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Phil Osborn wrote:
>
> > And on that note, consider how the Unemployment Compensation or
>Workman's
> > Comp systems actually work in practice. Unemployment compensation
>requires
> > the worker to prove that he or she was fired or laid-off due to no fault
>of
> > their own. The worker is forced to pay into the system, and then it
> > requires him to put up with virtually anything on the job with no
>recourse.
> > If he quits because the boss is a sadistic jerk who spends every day
> > psychologically torturing him, he gets back none of the money he paid
>in.
>
>Excuse me? Paid IN? The worker is paid OUT. He's paid out and paid
>out and paid out (and, more to the point, paid off) every two weeks on
>payday. How shameful that he isn't paid out even more when he quits!
>What is this world coming to?
>
>-Dan
>
> -unless you love someone-
> -nothing else makes any sense-
> e.e. cummings
>
Sorry, your class (or lack thereof) background is showing. (As an aside, I
have deliberately put myself into positions of vulnerability just to find
out the truth, for most of my life, which meant taking blue collar jobs
(with a physics degree) on occasion. I am always startled, however, when
someone who has never done anything like that comes up with responses
indicating complete ignorance.)
Basic economics: Whatever additional expenses are occasioned by employing
someone come out of their potential salary. If expenses rise, then
employers consider other options, such as contracting out, replacing workers
with machinery, etc. Thus, the unemployment insurance is ultimately paid by
the worker, since it is tied directly to his being employed.
But if he simply got the additional money, he could save it to create a
buffer or safety net so that he could afford to leave an unhuman situation,
even if he had no job immediately lined up. Unemployment comp, however,
takes that money and then forces the worker to put up with just about
anything short of physical assault - and there have even been cases in which
employers have been excused of that - before he's allowed to quit and get a
portion (minus the bureacratic handling charge or course) of it doled back
to him.
While he's getting that weekly pittance, instead of simply being handed a
lump sum (which as a worker he would be too naturally irresponsible to use
properly - right) which he might use to buy a computer, start a small
business, or purchase transportation or schooling, he is closely monitored
by the experts at the employment development center. If he decides to go to
school, for example, he risks losing his unemployment check.
He has to go on regular job interviews and has to justify to the nannies
back an the employment center why he didn't get or didn't accept an offer.
The fact that a job was totally undesirable is not an acceptable answer.
Strategies that might yield a really good position are often ruled out by
the very rules of the unemployment insurance structure.
Isn't it nice that we have such nice people to take our money from us at the
point of a nice gun and then use it to control where we can work? Put
yourself mentally in that position for a moment and then try to tell me how
this system is for the worker.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:07 MDT