I would say that an organization refusing employment on the basis of past convictions does them worse than an organization offering employment to those same people. They are free to decline it if they find "fair wages and good working conditions" at organizations which "are not taking advantage of their circumstance." It's strange to blame the self-interest of the one offering employment without offering an alternative solution.
Applebees may not be very good in your opinion, but it's better than starvation or scrounging for scraps.
That's the problem with simply expressing outrage and not offering any real solutions, while shooting down solutions that people in the situation actually choose, because that's what is available.
If the alternative is being unemployed, then people will take any job, no matter how bad it is. That doesn't mean the employer should be applauded just because they realized they could exploit the local labor market.
I have family members who literally have to take whatever job they can find because their options are severely limited, even if those jobs are really bad and no job at all would probably result in homelessness. Some people really don't have the option to "not work there" and it seems rather callous to suggest that.
I'm sure unemployment is worse than paid employment , but it sounds like people who do work with that hiring manager would also have a pretty bad time of it. Hateful ill-tempered people rarely compartmentalize it (except when sucking up to power)
You're too old. You have a criminal background. You're too overeducated. We think you'll sue. You're too young.
It seemed that companies are loathed to take risk on employee. At the same time, lot of environments contained toxic working conditions, so it's not clear if their choice of employees matter much.
But people must find a job to keep themselves afloat or depend on someone having a job. It didn't matter if you're bad at social grace or if you have mental illness or if you're a felon, old or young.
Without food, shelter, and peace of mind, I think people would be hard pressed to be economically productive.
The trouble is that most people will become homeless if they don't get a job. As long as there is a steady rate of unemployment, there are people that can't meaningfully decline whatever conditions are in their employment contract.
And that's what this pretty good system doesn't account for: the inherent coercion of a fundamentally unjust system
The other side of the coin is what do you do when there actually aren't jobs available in the region and there are too many people to effectively set up in self-employment? Making people jump through hoops and then frowning at their failings is fine when isolated to an individual, but at a demographic level it breaks down.
I recently spend five months out of work and unable to find a job and received welfare. I saw others like me playing the system. I saw others like me struggling to satisfy the system and more, applying for everything and getting rejections similarly. The system doesn't differentiate between the two.
To some degree it's the old 'where do you draw the line' - do you prefer to see the innocent suffer or the guilty go free?
I hate saying this, but it comes from a place of privilege. If you've never not had a job, you think just banning bad jobs will mean everyone has a good job. If you've been unemployed, you know you'd rather have a job and have it reformed through continuous work than be unemployed.
The problem, though, is that there are people who have never not had jobs who nonetheless have opinions on what the baseline job should be. Since they've never had to choose between food and a shitty job, they assume that they can solve the problem by just mandating jobs not be shitty.
In theory I agree, but for people who are in a situation where jobs are not plentiful, saying "no" is not a realistic option. Unless, of course, one is willing to back-up that "no" with arbitrarily expensive legal wrangling (which also happens to blacklist the individual with other employers).
There are jobs so bad that being unemployed is an improvement because at least then you have time to find something better.
Too many people are stuck in the trap of working for a terrible employer that beats them down psychologically, treats them like dirt, and forces them to jump through endless hoops just to keep their crappy job.
There's a bunch of obvious problems, off the top of my head: People should be able to to look for a job without necessarily tipping of their current employer. Ambition and hard work, unless expressed very carefully, could well become an endless trap. Those who work in industries with terrible unemployment will continue to be stigmatized even after they abandon their search in their old field and strike out into new ones. There's potential for abuse, e.g. Apple could falsely report all its current employees as submitting bajillions of resumes and thus prevent them finding other jobs. There's the problem of recruiters who submit resumes indiscriminately on a job seeker's behalf, sometimes without permission or even the seeker's knowledge.
Applebees may not be very good in your opinion, but it's better than starvation or scrounging for scraps.
That's the problem with simply expressing outrage and not offering any real solutions, while shooting down solutions that people in the situation actually choose, because that's what is available.
reply